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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Redirect to Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive - We don't need an essay for every specific form of hate speech. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:50, 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]

• Delete: We already have Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If we start adding "no personal attacks on X group" specific pages, we would be here all day. Cambalachero (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We have literally thousands of essays. They are created by many different editors. It doesn't require any of us to be here all day. AusLondonder (talk) 10:57, 30 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. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Girth Summit what level of community scrutiny/consensus building is necessary? This is my first wikipedia essay so I'm not sure where I'm supposed to head to notify people of it and gain broader consensus lol. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:57, 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. Girth Summit _(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. Girth Summit _(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. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ad Orientem Sweet6970 (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ad Orientem Okmrman (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[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]

• Comment: I have notified the LGBT noticeboard of this move discussion. Pinging those who've discussed/edited the essay: other significant contributors to the essay (@LokiTheLiar, @RoxySaunders, and @Raladic), those who have weighed in on the talk page (@Sundostund, @Queen of Hearts, and @Hob Gadling), and @NatGertler who weighed in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Wikipedia:No Queerphobes. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This appears to be coming very close to WP:CANVASSING. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 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]

  Ummm, please do not insult my intelligence. This was calling in the cavalry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 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. Durchbruchmüller 00:10, 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]
• Nomination withdrawn and request procedural close Naked canvassing has likely compromised the discussion irretrievably. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the discussion was closed at this point, and then re-opened. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Further note: the essay's title was changed from No queerphobes to No queerphobia while the discussion was closed. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:05, 5 May 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. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• How is notifying good faith contributions "naked canvassing"? I'm really at a loss to understand that argument. Please see WP:APPNOTE. AusLondonder (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 149.22.84.39 (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user above is a vandalism-only IP. Flounder fillet (talk) 02:23, 2 May 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 54129 19:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SN54129 BilledMammal (talk) 19:44, 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 ♡ | speak 21:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in WP namespace, as it represents the opinions of multiple editors rather than one. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:32, 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. — Sundostund mppria ^{(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...

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)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that you have edited the essay to say something more accurate. jp×g🗯️ 02:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"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".

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)[reply]

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]

  The essay has been edited considerably since I first made this comment, and I no longer think it is so bad as to justify deletion, although I still think it is more properly suited to userspace. jp×g🗯️ 23:05, 5 May 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]

• Keep. It might be merged to Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive, but it represents a separate well-defined subtopic. I do not see any harm from having this page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 29 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)
  • @Sock-the-guy: Who? jp×g🗯️ 01:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  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?

  2) Do you think that the page Wikipedia:No queerphobes is a policy? jp×g🗯️ 02:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*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 in namespace largely based on the points of what others have said, especially Bilorv Snokalok (talk) 03:32, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, we have lots of directly contradictory essays even. I note specifically WP:MANDY vs WP:NOTMANDY, but there are several other pairs like this. Loki (talk) 14:05, 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]
• Delete per Ad Orientem Chris Troutman (talk) 17:08, 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]
• Delete per Ad Orientem and agree that it looks like inappropriate notification has occurred. Springee (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you elaborate on the latter? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 01:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination has been notified about this discussion. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:26, 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]

  Maybe for balance we need to make sure every WikiProject has its Anti-WikiProject. No notifications to WT:LGBT without one to ʇqƃן:ʇʍ, etc. – Joe (talk) 14:15, 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:CANVASS specifically 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.

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.

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.

BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

BilledMammal (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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]

  Say an editor who sees that with experience. That's what many an essay is: an editor talking from their experience. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:02, 2 May 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 would be interested to read WP:Homophobes are not as bad as Nazis, just out curiosity as to what the arguments were. Someday I might turn WP:Hate is constructive blue, or maybe Category:Paternalistic, moralizing essays. Levivich (talk) 20:25, 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]

  @Levivich: Actually, I would like to see Category:Paternalistic, moralizing essays myself, out of pure humor and as a laughable anachronism. It would be fun to read it. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:57, 6 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, this is redundant to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Not every essay is kept or needed on Wikipedia. I think the policy on this is a pretty clear rationale for blocking editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:04, 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. Durchbruchmüller 18:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What dissenting views would those be, exactly? Simonm223 (talk) 22:27, 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". Durchbruchmüller 22:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally would rather bigots not be putting their bigotry into Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally would rather users reply with something of substance rather than soapboxing with more non sequiturs. Durchbruchmüller 23:03, 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]

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)[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. Durchbruchmüller 00:25, 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". Durchbruchmüller 02:37, 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". Durchbruchmüller 03:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Delete I agree strongly with what Ad Orientem said at the beginning of the debate. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:20, 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]

  There have been definitely on-going problems with anti-LGBT editors of various strains. Perhaps you are not editing the correct articles to be used to them. Many are very simple short-term vandalism, but others are long efforts to get fringe claims treated as well-reviewed science and such. An essay that recognizes some of the techniques used including ones that seem to show up primarily in gay-related conversations, such as trying to claim that all gay editors have an inherent conflict of interest on them, can help in the understanding and conversation. At the very least, it expresses the views of the people who have created and adjusted the essay. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:46, 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? Durchbruchmüller 03:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it does. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How else should I interpret statements like It's a political screed (from the nomination) and Additionally, a couple of the "queerphobic beliefs" can easily be in good faith (from a vote)? The latter is directly disagreeing with a part of the essay, and as for the former, you don't usually call things you agree with "political screeds". Pinguinn 🐧 09:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that it’s being called a political screed just says to me that this essay wouldn’t even be slightly controversial had it come out five years ago. As the old saying goes “There are two sexualities - straight, and political” Snokalok (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's being called a "political screed" because the essay quite literally lists a series of political beliefs that it deems "queerphobic", and argues anyone who believes those things does not belong on this site. Please stop using a persecution complex to attempt to shield anything related to LGBT topics from criticism. Durchbruchmüller 19:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I love screeds, and agree with plenty of them, but I don't think Wikipedia essays-qua-policies are a good place to store them. "Disagreeing with its thesis" is kind of a straw man here: it is possible to simultaneously agree with a statement and object to establishing a framework for removing everyone who disagrees with it. It's certainly possible that some of the people who want to delete or userfy this essay disagree with the opinions in it, but my objection is not to that. jp×g🗯️ 14:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And similarly, it is possible to object to a framework while supporting the right of an essay promoting that framework to exist. Wrong essays are useful. My reaction to the essay - especially the earlier versions of it - was also that it was problematic in its exclusionary approach. It has changed and continues to change. I'd still like to see the best version of it because that would challenge me to sharpen my own views.--Trystan (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• support deleting this mfd. ltbdl (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I fail to see how whether this essay is useful or not is relevant to this discussion. I personally find it useful, but this is just an opinion. If one group of people finds an essay helpful, while another group of people does not, it still has nothing to do with whether the essay should get deleted. It is just an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, even when essays are explicitly supposed to be opinions of a group of editors. The fact that people who disagree with this essay don't want to write their own rebuttals and want to remove this essay from existence instead just goes to show how politicized queer issues are becoming. This is not an essay that is limited to a single editor's view, so it makes no sense to userfy. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I disagree with much of the essay (including the title), but as mentioned already, the page is quite clearly not indended to represent general consensus. IDONTLIKEIT is a weak argument and the essay as it currently reads can offer valuable guidance to users unfamiliar with what is considered offensive by some. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend to avoid these kinds of discussions, but as the primary author of WP:Hate is disruptive I suppose I should chip in. I wrote that essay in response to two concerns about WP:No Nazis: One, that it focused on a relatively arbitrary subset of bigots, and two, that it faulted people for what they believe rather than how they behave. Creating essays for every kind of bigotry would indeed be another way to fix that first concern, although it'd get rather tedious, probably. And the bold rename of this essay nominally addresses the latter here, although it may well not stick. A group RM to "No Nazism", "No racism", etc., might better convey what those essays mean to say, since, fundamentally, we have no idea who is a Nazi, a racist, a queerphobe, etc., unless they make it obvious through their actions. But I dunno. Essays are allowed to be wrong, even profoundly wrong. At a certain point of outright disagreement with policy we tend to say that an essay ought to go to userspace, and I see how a reasonable person could draw that conclusion with this suite of essays (less so how one could draw that conclusion about this one essay and not the others), but I'm just not sold on it.
  Since I wrote HATEDISRUPT, I've seen it cited more and more, and I'd venture it's now more the go-to to cite than NONAZIS etc. are. I'm proud of that, and hope to see that trend continue, because I still feel that NONAZIS just isn't a very good way to look at the problem, and, at least as much as this essay echoes NONAZIS, I feel the same about it. (I say that with the caveat that I think this essay makes its case better than most similar ones.) YFNS had asked me ages ago whether I thought an essay like this was a good idea, and I told them flat-out "no", and I still think it's a bad idea. But I don't think it needs to be deleted by force. If any of the "NO-X" essays' authors want to userfy them, by all means. If the authors of this essay in particular want to convert it more to an information page about types of queerphobia than a pseudo-policy, I think that'd be just swell. But I've seen way, way worse projectspace essays. (WP:MANDY, anyone? WP:INSCRUTABLE? Shudders.) And the one time I thought to MfD one for being obviously against consensus, there was no consensus to delete/userfy, something I later came to realize was the correct outcome. A diversity of opinions in projectspace is part of healthy discourse, even when essays are duplicative of others, even when they say it less well than others, even when they're plain old wrong. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think a lot of the discomfort over this is that essays like this one make bare the honest truth that Wikipedia cannot escape being a political text. What we have presently is a Wikipedia that is a scizophrenic political text wherein any given local project establishes a politic and then calls that "neutral consensus". But these essays, being something that speaks about Wikipedia as a cultural whole, attempt to establish political norms for Wikipedia.

  The thing is that we effectively have three options in these cases. We could have a political norm that says "transphobia is bigotry," we could have a political norm that says "transphobia is not bigotry," or we can have a political norm that says, "transphobia will be considered bigotry by those projects who see it as bigotry and as not bigotry by those projects that see it as not bigotry."

  Presently we've chosen the third option. Clearly it's not working well. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We could have a political norm that says "transphobia is bigotry"... I grow tired of seeing this false paradigm presented as being far more simple than it really is. "Transphobia", "queerphobia", or whatever "phobia" you want to use as an example is inherently far more problematic vis-a-vis essays or policy being harbored in project space, because the definition of what constitutes those things is far more nebulous than, say, being a Nazi or American Confederate. Nazism and 'Confederate-ism' are ideologies predicated on racial hatred, among other things, and racial hatred is obviously not constructive for the purposes of this project. However the criteria for what constitutes "queerphobia" is infinitely more problematic. Everything from expressing the view that 'youths should not be allowed to undergo sex changes' to simply identifying a given person by their biological sex or birth name can be construed as "queerphobia", per what is written in the essay. Is it really in the interest of this project to finger wag at people and call them "queerphobes", from a piece enshrined in projectspace, for holding a good faith view, or identifying an individual on an indisputable, factual basis? Durchbruchmüller 19:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Simonm223 Regarding your self-revert and passive aggressive edit summary, I accept your concession. Durchbruchmüller 20:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You heard it here folks, identifying a given person by their biological sex or birth name (ie, misgendering and deadnaming people) is in fact a good faith view and identifying an individual on an indisputable, factual basis and shouldn't be construed as "queerphobia"... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On an encyclopedic project that is dedicated to providing information on people, places, and things? It certainly shouldn't. Encyclopedias should not obfuscate plain facts simply because a group demands it. Also biological sex is not a gender, and therefore cannot constitute "misgendering". If I went around telling everyone I was "white", even though my skin is in fact, the color brown, and claimed everyone who said I was "not white" was 'misracializing me', including on my Wikipedia article (provided I was noteworthy) I would be justifiably rebuked. Your ability to misrepresent arguments is commendable though. Durchbruchmüller 20:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Encyclopedias should not obfuscate plain facts simply because a group demands it. What are we obfuscating??? And which group is demanding it? Articles on people who were famous pre-transition still mention their deadname. Our articles about trans people say they're trans - what are we hiding? What does identifying a given person by their biological sex mean? Does it mean replace every instance of the word "trans woman" with "man"? Does it mean use pronouns following people's sex at birth rather than their gender identity? Your complaint is vague and meaningless.

  And, since you've now arrived at comparing trans people to transracial people, I've seen all the nonsense on wikipedia I can tolerate today. Please address subsequent dogwhistles to other editors. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Since you've now arrived at comparing trans people to transracial people... Is there a meaningful distinction, besides the frequency with which the two groups manifest themselves? If Wikipedians are compelled to address biological males as "women" if they identify as such, does not an identical policy also apply to race? Should an essay titled WP:No Transracialphobes also be afforded projectspace, and does anyone who doesn't describe a given person as their self-identified race deserve to be censured, and be told they're a "bigot"? To reject the obvious parallels out-of-hand just seems disingenuous. Durchbruchmüller 21:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To reject the obvious [differences] out-of-hand just seems disingenuous. There's no psychological research, let alone a consensus, that I'm aware of that suggests A) transracialism is real B) transracialism may (or always does) involve symptoms of racial dysphoria C) the aforementioned ostensible dysphoria is alleviated by socially transitioning and others referring to the transracial person by the race other than their assigned race at birth (I won't abbreviate that like we do AGAB; it just muddies the point). Sincerely, Dilettante 21:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Durchbruchmüller, I feel an invalid slippery slope argument coming on. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Durchbruchmüller: You make for an interesting case study in the application of WP:HATEDISRUPT. Your username references a WWI German colonel, who was influential for Nazi tactics in WWII and was retroactively promoted to general in 1939, but wasn't himself a Nazi (as far as I can tell). This is what we call a dog whistle, akin to the old "I'm using a swastika because it's the Buddhist symbol of peace." Of course, it might be a coincidence. Let's see. You almost exclusively edited mainspace and talkspace until this month, when you suddenly crossed over into projectspace, almost a blitzkrieg, one might say. Your edits to mainspace consist overwhelmingly of edits to Nazi history and POV-pushing consistent with a far-right POV on LGBT and communist topics. You really got right to it, too! Here we have you cleaning up that damn spot off the Wermacht; here you're edit-warring a German name into a Polish city's article.

  Thus we encounter another of the reasons I wrote HATEDISRUPT, which is to emphasize that aligning oneself with a hate movement, even without saying the magic words on-wiki, is disruptive editing, because it by its very nature makes editors targeted by that hate movement feel unwelcome. Would a reasonable admin, viewing the totality of the evidence here, consider you to be a cryptofascist? I think they would, but maybe I'm wrong. I've known ScottishFinnishRadish, Drmies, EvergreenFir, and Premeditated Chaos to all be good judges of this in the past. Maybe one can take a look.

  Just so this doesn't go down as an off-topic comment, I'd like to bring this back to the merits of the essay at hand. Pace Johnuniq (a great editor who I am sure has commented here in absolute good faith, but is also dead wrong), these organized groups of anti-LGBTQ activists do exist, and are in our wiki, and sometimes, as in this case, overlap with those same Nazis we've all grown to know and hate. A good illustration of why a single, unified essay on bigotry is more apt; but also of why an anti-queerphobia essay is no more or less reasonable than an anti-Nazi one. Thank you, Herr Müller, for reminding us why people write essays like this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's just an essay. With no official status and optional advice, wide latitude is traditionally given to their scope. No compelling reasons have been given for deletion. We're not as bad as other platforms, but the English Wikipedia community has a history of homophobia and transphobia. We've arguably made progress in some ways, blanking a Signpost article that poked fun at pronouns and moving the "humorous" Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles (WP:NOTGAY) to Meta, but we still have room for improvement. I think it would be irresponsible to userfy and thereby censor an essay that aims to create a space that is safer for editors that belong to marginalized groups. gobonobo ^{+ c} 19:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think people need to ask where and how would this essay be used? Since it does have a Wikilink, are editors going to cite it in disputes when we already have a policy that covers personal attacks? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ESSAY says, Essays ... typically contain ... opinions of one or more editors. There's no doubt this fits that definition. There's no requirement to justify how the essay will be used. RoySmith (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No one is saying it doesn't fit the criteria for an essay. This MfD is discussing what merit, if any, this essay has for existing in projectspace. Do we need an infinite number of No "x" essays that serve functions that are already being served? Durchbruchmüller 21:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I don't think we need all those. More specifically, I don't think we need this one. But there's a lot of room between "I don't think we need this" and "I think we need to delete this". RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How can this be an mere opinion when editors are choosing to endorse or not endorse it on the essays talkpage? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think endorsing or not endorsing indicates anything other than agreement or disagreement with the opinion expressed. Similarly, citing an essay in a discussion is just a shorthand way of saying "here's an argument I agree with and think is relevant".--Trystan (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but this can be abused which is why we have WP:PGE. Simply citing WP:NPA or the like with diffs is what admin would look for when blocking an editor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this essay is useful, so we know how to deal with hatred and other forms of discrimination and prejudice. --MikutoH ^talk! 21:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, with ultimate moral support for the contents of the essay regardless of outcome. I've given it a bit of thought over the last few days and I think pretty much all of this could fall under WP:HID. This, however, does not outweigh our policy on essays, which allow for expressions of opinions, and as pointed out in an earlier comment, good faith contributors should have a certain amount of leeway given to them in this realm. The essay itself is balanced enough in my eyes, specficically on the "aspersions" section which discourages using this as some sort of tool to "silence" those disagreeing with you, as some of the comments have expressed concern about. Ultimately I just don't find enough in it to vote for deletion, and while I won't be overly worried either way about deletion or keeping (knowing that anti-LGBT editors do regularly cop bans here once they go mask-off), I fall just about on the side of voting keep. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Not a fan of all these WP:NO... essays which seem redundant to Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive and it's probably better in user space, but can't see a reason for outright deletion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the essay (disclaimer: I saw this discussion in Special:RecentChanges after the sock mentioned on top was blocked). People are free to believe what they will as long as they do not act in a manner that is disruptive, but I'm not gonna fucking feel safe if people who want me dead are on Wikipedia, even if they don't edit gender stuff. Also, Tamzin brings out a great point: the anti-LGBTQ and neo-Nazi groups often overlap, so it could go either way, but to me I'm in the camp where an essay about how anti-LGBTQ editing is not compatible is necessary. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A lot of the !keep comments I'm seeing say that this essay is no more or less valid than WP:NONAZIS, WP:NORACISTS, and WP:NOCONFED. What separates the No Queerphobes essay from the others is that, in its current state, it likens beliefs that can come from good faith with legitimate transphobia. Saying things like "I am worried about children making such an irreversible decision they may regret at too young of an age" (problem on That LGBT children cannot know their identities) or "I believe putting trans women in women's prisons could get the cisgender women pregnant" (problem on That transgender rights conflict with feminism, the rights of cisgender women) is not the same as something legitimately harmful like "trans people should die". The problematic parts of the list can probably be removed, but as long as this essay is up I am certain they will always find a way back. Compared the others, it feels like the definition of what counts as "queerphobic" is relatively subjective, which is a problem for something that will inevitably be cited constantly. That being said, I will concede that this is likely a more common issue than NoConfed (an issue specific to the USA). In fact, I agree with Tamzin that a single, unified essay on bigotry is more apt and that these specific bigotry essays focused on a relatively arbitrary subset of bigots, and that it faulted people for what they believe rather than how they behave. I'm tempted to suggest merging all four of these essays into WP:HATEDISRUPT. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I share your concerns here that this essay is problematic. It tries too hard to pinpoint exact things to watch out for as defined by the editor who included it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That actually sounds like a good thing for an essay to be for. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. And if there are some editors who feel discomfort at the idea that views they hold in "good faith" may be seen as bigoted by some of their colleagues this, perhaps, offers an opportunity for self-reflection. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Conversely, if there are editors who believe that legitimate concerns over safety for children and prisons are bigoted, and will liken said safety concerns to something genuinely awful like that group dead, that also offers an opportunity for self-reflection. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because you think that beliefs such as "I believe putting trans women in women's prisons could get the cisgender women pregnant" aren't transphobic in nature? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They probably meant safety concerns in general, e.g. Isla Bryson case. Some1 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My concern indeed is with safety, and I don't see how safety concerns could reasonably be considered transphobic at all. The blatant aspersions of transphobia where good faith is clearly present is why I think this essay is problematic. I had not heard of Isla Bryson, though that is the type of case where I know people will argue whether or not that counts as transphobia. The case I had in mind when typing this was [REMOVED - Oshwah]. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good faith does not absolve someone of being anti-LGBTQ any more than it absolves someone of racism, sexism, etc. We even have articles on some of these "good faith" variants, eg Benevolent sexism. -- asilvering (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that at a certain point Anti-LGBTQ edits are disruptive enough to revert regardless of good faith. But this essay page calls for blocking over way too many things, and, as stated before, the subject of the article is controversial enough that I don't trust that anything removed for crossing the line will stay removed. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's avoid euphemisms: I am worried about children making such an irreversible decision they may regret at too young of an age -> I think children should go through irreversible changes they don't want because I'm convinced they're not actually trans. "irreversible decision" is bullshit fearmongering since those who talk about it never show any concern for the irreversible changes they're deciding against the child's wishes.

  I believe putting trans women in women's prisons could get the cisgender women pregnant - is a factual statement. That transgender rights conflict with feminism, the rights of cisgender women is a non-sequitur as feminism does not conflict with the observation "people can have sex and get pregnant". The argument holds as much weight as "I believe the birds can fly, (problem on That rights of this minority conflict with the rights of this majority)" If what you're getting at is the belief I believe that putting trans women in women's prisons is a danger to cisgender women so they should be put in men's prisons - you're framing an entire demographic as inherently dangerous (when they're disproportionately more likely to be sexually assaulted) based on their immutable characteristics and consigning them to a place where they're at an incredibly high risk of sexual assualt, beatings, murder, etc.

  So are these equivalent to trans people should die? No (though the second one does put trans women at a higher risk of being murdered), they're equivalent to trans people should suffer. If your bar for legitimately harmful is straight up calling for people's murder - IDK what else to say except you should probably be aware people can be bigoted and/or hold bigoted beliefs without going as far as calling for murder. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, even though this discussion is probably isn't going to go anywhere anyway. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What about redirecting WP:NONAZIS, WP:NORACISTS, WP:NOCONFED, WP:NOQUEERPHOBES to Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive; and on WP:HID, create a new section consisting of a bulleted list of wiki-links to: Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Transphobia, Queerphobia, Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Ageism, Ableism, Xenophobia, etc. etc.? And have all of the new "WP:NO ____" essays automatically redirect to Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive? Some1 (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would not be opposed to that, though I am a bit hesitant to include WP:NONAZIS in such a merge due to its age and prevalence. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:HID and WP:NONAZIS (et al.) present overlapping but distinct opinions on editing (individualistic and behavior-based vs. systemic and belief-based); editors in this discussion have already contrasted them, as do the essays themselves. DanielRigal's comments above point to the unique value in of these essays and this one in particular.

  If redundancy were the actual issues here (shocking how no one ever campaigned so vociferously to delete WP:NORACISTS and WP:NOCONFED...), then I would push toward unifying NONAZIS et al. into something like WP:Bigots should not edit Wikipedia. Combining them like this would still be controversial, given the contributors to this discussion who like NONAZIS and don't like this one

  Editors who disagree or think that WP:HID is the better essay can simply... ignore the others and not point to them. As has been said hundreds of times now, essays can contain minority viewpoints. If there is room in project-space for ump dozen essays on notability and a hundred WP:WikiFauna, then there is room for five similar-ish essays on bigotry. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we can file that with an idea to merge all articles about individual US Presidents into a single article. It can be handy to have a single essay that focuses on one sort of problem for directing people facing that specific problem. It does not need to vague everything out so that folks have to step back generalities to see how they apply to specific types of concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm in the camp that that's like merging the US presidents into an article Snokalok (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Makes sense to me. Hate speech is a problem regardless of which protected class it's aimed at. Levivich (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Despite many people saying so, and despite it apparently being Tamzin's explicit purpose when writing WP:HID, I do not think that WP:NONAZIS overlaps very much at all with WP:HID.

  In fact, our friend Durchburchmuller above shows a great example of when WP:NONAZIS applies but WP:HID doesn't: someone whose user page consists of a reasonably clear Nazi dogwhistle but whose actual editing behavior is not clearly bigoted is still a Nazi and still unwelcome. WP:HID is more for cases where someone is actually expressing bigotry on-wiki somehow, while still not directly making a personal attack: say, for instance, a prominent editor implying that women are less intelligent than men.

  WP:NOQUEERPHOBES has more overlap with WP:HID, but still not 100%: there's plenty of times people have tried to POV-push Genspect or SEGM as sources without ever being overtly transphobic, for instance, and having a clear way to push back against that seems very useful to me. I'm not sure the parallelism with WP:NONAZIS is the best way to express this, and I wouldn't mind it being rewritten to be closer to WP:HID, but I wouldn't want to actually merge it with WP:HID. Loki (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is pushing back with an essay the correct approach? Wouldn't policy be more appropriate? With regard to using unreliable sources, there's a policy for that. Additionally, one of the issues I could see coming out of this essay, much like others such as WP:NONAZIS is that it can be used to label and disparage an editor. While there are certainly instances of where a person is not only a Nazi, but they're acting like one as well, I'm almost certain WP:DE is the final arbiter on weighing if a person actions are disruptive and deserving of a block.

  What I appreciate about WP:HID is that it's broad enough to not only encompass the topic we're discussion on this deletion, but also covers every other form of bigotry, phobia, etc. In short, we really don't need an essay for every form of hate, at least in mainspace, and would be supportive of a merge. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's out of the scope of this discussion. You'd need to propose it separately and make sure all the affected pages are properly tagged. – Joe (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this part is fair. When I said I was tempted to propose merging all four of the bigotry essays, I did not think somebody would start the discussion on this page. I am considering starting a separate page so that this discussion does not further derail the intended one, though I don't know which space to put it in. Would it still be Miscellany for Deletion? Unnamed anon (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Unnamed anon: It should be at WT:Hate is disruptive (talk page of the merge target page), and then you have to post notices on all the pages proposed to be merged into the target page. See WP:MERGEPROP for instructions. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with a merge into a single essay expressing a single viewpoint is that we aren’t actually all in agreement. The extent to which we should tolerate the intolerant is a fundamentally difficult question on which full agreement is neither possible nor desirable, so giving some space for expression of differing views is warranted.--Trystan (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Differing views is precisely why I do not like the idea of separating all of these essays. I feel like having them separate encourages nitpicking what is considered part of that bigotry, as is clear on NoQuerphobes. With all of them under one page, something to nitpick is not front and center, and would be less likely to be added by people who are not already invested. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merging frankly this MfD provides ample evidence for the value of these essays as individual objects at the very least as lightning rods. Notwithstanding this I think there is evident value for giving space to breathe to examine how various bigotries might manifest uniquely. Wikipedia is not at such a loss for storage space that a few extra pages presents any sort of technical or functional problem and I think it's well-known, at this point, that essays aren't policy statements. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While I wouldn't delete this essay (because there's no policy based reason to since the policy is that people can basically write essays on whatever they want within reason), I don't think Wikipedia is the place for publishing writing that examines how various bigotries might manifest uniquely. Also I don't think that "lighting rod" is a good thing. If an essay generates conflict and controversy, that's disruptive, not constructive, to building an encyclopedia. In fact that's a reason to merge IMO. Levivich (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Disruption is likely to occur. Better at an essay's talk page than at J.K. Rowling. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Essays are not policies, but they can be easily mistaken for one, and in fact I believe having the bigotry essays up may encourage disruption on an article's talk page if the contents of said essay are controversial and also prone to disruption, like right now. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hypothetical readers mistaking non-P&G pages in project-space for P&G, or mistakenly citing essays as if they held the authority of policy is a WP:PEBMAC issue, and something actively addressed by having Template:Essay at the top of it. This essay is in line with Wikipedia's disruptive editing guidelines and blocking policy, and comports with the history of arbitration enforcement against problematic editors.

  If confusing essay and policy is an easy mistake, then we should be far more concerned about the 151 debatably humorous essays which sarcastically offer advice that is in direct contrast to accepted wisdom (e.g. WP:STHU, WP:KEEPTALKING, WP:PLEASEBITE, WP:BRRR). –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Those essays are clearly satire and humorous, the fact of the matter is that essays in general are not policy per WP:CONLEVEL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, I think that's very clear. My point is that "this essay should be deleted/merged/userfied because someone might read it and ignore the fact that it says it isn't policy and think it's policy" is an uncompelling and frankly absurd argument. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe there are too many of these essays, but I don't think they should all be merged; at any rate, I don't think that a MfD for one page is a very effective venue for working out the details of a merge proposal for a half-dozen other pages. jp×g🗯️ 05:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, my comment wasn't intended to be an actionable proposal exactly, but a general comment to gauge people's opinion on the idea. Not sure how the header got on there, but I'll change it to 'Arbitrary break 4'. Some1 (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry about that. I had added the header primarily to alleviate some problems with the source editor (not sure if I'm the only one who has this, but after a certain page length my source editor will just stop working properly and any new lines will be invisible). It seemed to me at the time that you were offering an actionable alternative to deletion, so it made more sense to title the new section as such rather than another arbitrary break. My mistake. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect this and similar essays to WP:HID which expresses the important point much more succinctly and clearly than this essay, which is highly problematic:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Keep Per @Raladic and others. This essay is being edited collectively and isn't only the opinion of one contributor, but of many Wikipedians. At a time where queerphobia is rising in media and political discourse, I feel it is very relevant to have specific guidelines on LGBT+ topics. Skimel (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to the polls, most Americans are not welcome to edit here. Last year, my WP:OR led me to believe that we should take a more cautious approach with transgender children. Under this essay, I should be blocked even though I don't support the GOP's extreme policies. Claiming that the science is settled on this issue less than a month after the Cass Review was published is the epitome of anti-intellectualism. Just to be clear though, I still think that misgendering and deadnaming should result in a block. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, I'd be fine with keeping the essay if the following changes were made:

  1. changing children to people in That LGBT children cannot know their identities.
  2. removing the bullet point: That transgender rights conflict with feminism, the rights of cisgender women, or the rights of cisgender queer people.
  3. removing excluded from gendered spaces from That trans people should be unable to change their legal gender, be excluded from gendered spaces, or restricted/banned from accessing gender-affirming healthcare.
  4. removing and/or youth from That transgender healthcare is unsafe and should be banned or otherwise made inaccessible for adults and/or youth.
  5. removing "historical accuracy" from That deadnaming or misgendering transgender subjects is justified by "historical accuracy" or "basic biology".

  But I'm sure such changes will face much resistance though. Some1 (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Some1: Yes, these are the exact bullet points I have issues with. I mentioned the first two earlier as examples, but the other three are also problematic. I would also add That LGBT editors have a conflict of interest and cannot write or speak neutrally about LGBT-related topics because of their identity to the list of bad bullet points that should be removed; while it is true that often LGBT editors can escape the Conflict of Interest concerns, this seems to be an attempt at absolving the editor even when there clearly is a conflict of interest, like in this discussion (I have noticed that quite a lot of the "keep" !votes are coming from LGBT editors). Unfortunately, the essay's author has made it clear that she thinks that saying children can know their gender and that trans rights can't impede on feminism both qualify as "queerphobia". I'm not even going to argue with something so blatantly misguided, as this proved my suspicions that as long as this essay is up, there will be claims of "queerphobia" that will be used to WP:ICANTHEARYOU, even in cases where a legitimate debate is to be had. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  while it is true that often LGBT editors can escape the Conflict of Interest concerns, this seems to be an attempt at absolving the editor even when there clearly is a conflict of interest, like in this discussion (I have noticed that quite a lot of the "keep" !votes are coming from LGBT editors) - so only cis straight people are qualified to discuss LGBT issues neutrally without a conflict of interest? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I trust that there are LGBT editors who can discuss the article neutrally. I have partaken in a couple discussions on LGBT BLPs where Tamzin, who if I remember correctly is non-binary, also partook, and they were very neutral on the topic and very reasonable. But a comment like I wrote the essay partly due to being sick of years of … writing … that "gender ideology" is real, that trans kids are actually just mentally ill cis kids …, or that all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists, or whatever else definitely shows POV pushing and editing in one's own interest, and the bullet point can easily be used to say "No I don't have a COI, this essay says so!" Unnamed anon (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bruh... POV pushing and editing in one's own interest? All those beliefs you listed are 1) FRINGE to the max 2) blatantly offensive.

  that trans kids are actually just mentally ill cis kids - like seriously, you're defending that? Or all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists? Please explain how either of those is in any way not queerphobic.... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is better. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This feels a bit like hostage-taking. The talk page is open for you to suggest improvements to the essay. There is no need to make these improvements under threat of a Delete !vote if your exact desired changes are not reflected. I'm am interested to hear further reasoning for your desired changes.

  Historical accuracy is my attempt at encapsulating a bad-faith argument which seeks to justify of misgendering/deadnaming, that I've encountered several times from editors who are (accidentally or maliciously) ignorant of MOS:GENDERID or its bloody history. In long form, it is the argument that using a trans subject's current name and pronouns (either for their entire biography or for speaking about the period of time before they came out), and eliding quotes to follow suit is an inappropriate distortion of the historical record, or a betrayal of a supposed mission of Wikipedia to preserve indiscriminate trivia at the expense of respecting BLP subjects and their privacy. Is there a better way to phrase this? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 07:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do appreciate your notice at the top of the "queerphobic beliefs" section. I am glad that you seem to be open to discussion. At least in my case, the threat of deletion came from the lack of trust that any changes to the list would not be accepted. Unnamed anon (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Under this essay, I should be blocked - Where does this essay say that? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @0xDeadbeef: at the top of the page: This page in a nutshell: 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, in a list that includes reasonable debates over safety, such as the ones that Some1 listed just above. I also want to respond to your endorsement on the essay's talk page, encouraging others who have expressed opinions or sentiments without completely reading the essay to read it too. I have read the whole essay, and reading the full essay directly led to my disagreement with it. In fact, had I only read the title, I probably would actually endorse it, but because several editors who have worked on this essay have a very loose definition of "queerphobia" and are adamant about falsely shutting down legitimate debates as bigotry, I see more harm coming from it. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait, I'm confused. So are you saying blocking people for queerphobia is not within the scope of disruptive editing policy? And just to make it clear, which part of that explicitly said anyone that holds these queerphobic beliefs in this essay must be blocked on sight? That seems to be how you are interpreting it. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course queerphobia falls under the disruptive editing policy. If somebody intentionally calls somebody a slur, that is grounds for a block. My problem with this essay comes from what is listed as "queerphobia", and I have zero trust that the editors working on this essay will allow the bad bullet points to be removed or rewritten based on the authors' responses to me. You are correct that nothing says the editors should be blocked on sight. While the nutshell box at the top is a problem, re-reading the "what do you do" section shows that it is surprisingly lenient, with one major exception. It says we don't have to treat every harmful edit as the result of non-malicious ignorance, and if real medical debates are seen as harmful according to this essay's list of queerphobic beliefs, that is a problem. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This argument (not the comment immediately above but rather the whole debate in general) perfectly demonstrates how Wikipedia cannot ever effectively be non-political. The edit requests suggest that we must concede to transphobic talking points or risk alienating supposed mainstream American editors. Neither is a non-political proposition. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems relevant to this particular comment --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have reread the essay. It seems that I must have misread it just before it got nominated for deletion. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am not seeing any policy based reasons not to keep it, especially when we are good with essays like WP:NONAZIS. PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I reread the essay, and I concluded that this essay is just WP:HID applied to queer people. To me this already seems like de facto policy. For some reason, I misread the entire essay just before it was nominated for deletion. My apologies. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merging (just for the record, I already voted Keep in Wikipedia namespace regarding this MfD nomination, as can be seen way up above). Any redirecting/"bundling up" WP:NONAZIS, WP:NORACISTS, WP:NOCONFED and WP:NOQUEERPHOBES to Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive would be unhelpful and counterproductive, and could be see as a pure manifestation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. These well-established and endorsed essays already cover in detail certain specific issues, which could never be covered in an appropriate and detailed way in a single, generic essay. Some of them are dealing with issues that, up until recently, went pretty much undetected by the wider community and affected a huge number of users. For instance, until recently it wasn't so uncommon to see Confederate flags and other symbols on various userpages, while those users clearly attempted to push their POV into the Civil War-related articles (and other South-related pages). All of that created the impression that the project looks on racism, and even on attempts of whitewashing slavery, in an uninterested or even benevolent way. It was even worse regarding the LGBT issues, with anti-transgender theories, comments and slurs widely present (and even made by some long-standing contributors), leading to heated and long ANI discussions and sanctions. All these issues should be dealt with in a direct, separate, specific and detailed way, which clearly shows how and why such behavior is unacceptable on the project. It certainly wouldn't be possible if we merge all these topics at a single place. In the end, it would be literally impossible and unacceptable to merge such widely endorsed essays without notifying all the users who expressed their opinion on the respective talk pages, regardless of their support or opposition to those essays. By that way, it would be done strictly in accordance with WP:APPNOTE, and no one would be able to claim its WP:CANVASSING. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia has a bad habit of cuddling and coddling editors who advance and propound queerphobia. Queerphobic behavior violates our policies on civility and harassment. That we are literally seeing some of the queerphobic (particularly transphobic) talking points the essay warns about brazenly on display in this thread goes to show that this essay is relevant and necessary. This essay should be kept, and a lot of people in this thread should be admonished—or, frankly, blocked—for bald-faced queerphobia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comments such as a lot of people in this thread should be admonished—or, frankly, blocked—for bald-faced queerphobia are the primary reason why I believe this essay should be deleted. It's really only going to be used to shut down discussions where legitimate debates are to be had, or be used to claim that editors do not have a conflict of interest even when it's obvious. I think this essay is in a pretty good state now that some editors have allowed the removal of particularly controversial definitions of "queerphobia" (particularly the ones regarding real medical debates, such as with transgender youth), as well as the template RoxySaunders added making this essay less accusatory, so if it stays up I won't be upset unless somebody adds the bad bullet points back or claims that this essay is a policy. However, I will not strike my delete !vote because essays like this will inherently be claimed by the people most affected and will likely be cited in a manner that is incredibly unconstructive to wiki discussions, as you have just shown by personally asking for blocking users in this thread. That was completely inappropriate and borders on a personal attack. The only one who deserved a block was the legitimate Nazi sockpuppet, who is already blocked.Unnamed anon (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  please. ltbdl (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I consider some of the recent excisions from the essay an unfortunate weakening of it, as it's leaving open the door for normalizing claiming that there are cases when trans people shouldn't get agency over their healthcare, or that there are cases trans people should be excluded from gendered spaces. Pointing out that there is bigotry against LGBTQ+ people on Wikipedia isn't disruptive to Wiki discussions. Meanwhile, editors saying trans identification and healthcare should be age-locked, or that rights for trans women somehow threatens feminism, or that deadnaming people is Good Actually—all examples that appear in this thread—that is disruptive, and defending such as if it's not queerphobic is disruptive because doing so creates a Wikipedia environment hostile to the participation of queer editors. And I'm not very interested in how an editor may have no personal, affective animus because propounding queerphobia with supposed respect and affection is still destructive to both the project and to LGBTQ+ people volunteering their time to the project. As for whether pointing out bigotry is a personal attack, it isn't. As WP:No queerphobes reminds, our social policies aren't a self-destructive pact, and we're not obligated have to just take harmful contributions on the chin or pretend that Transphobia Is Fine, Actually. It isn't. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not very interested in how an editor may have no personal, affective animus tells me that shutting down legitimate debates is okay. It isn't. Thank you for proving that this essay will likely be used to shut down real discussions, because that was a concern of mine that you proved to be correct. Whether you like it or not, saying trans identification and healthcare should be age-locked, or that rights for trans women somehow threatens feminism are both real debates that I'm glad were allowed to be removed from the essay, because if the essay does stay up, it's at least not spouting controversial opinions as undisputed facts. They aren't. I think this essay should only consider the really obvious, undisputed stuff as queerphobia; anything that includes genuine concern for another group should not be under that umbrella, which is why they had to go. The listed beliefs that remain, any reasonable person would find offensive, which is good for a list like that. The recent excisions strengthen the essay to be taken more seriously. However, the original concern that you proved correct remains, and it's why I still think this essay should be deleted or merged or userfied despite its relatively good status; you just showed that it can and will be used to shut down legitimate discussions, and that is extremely disruptive. Unnamed anon (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If a person denying agency of health and being to trans folks is just expressing genuine concern for another group, I don't want to know what such folks advocate for people for whom they aren't concerned. What I'm seeing is you showing that you value the idea of protecting the expression of transphobia above creating a safe editing environment. And while in this post you speak of the essay's relatively good status, it's hard to regard that credulously when your initial comment described the essay with terms like extreme hostility, very unconstructive, its own hatred, and fringe viewpoint. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Those comments were from before the bullet points that I found to be a problem (i.e. real medical debates) were removed from the essay. I only think the essay is in relatively good standing because the recent excisions no longer group good faith viewpoints with genuine transphobia, and my opinion will shift back to the things you quoted if you or anybody else tries to add them back. My initial reply to you was to show that I am not striking my delete !vote, despite at least two others striking their delete !votes because of the excisions. What I'm seeing from you is that you value the idea of accusing others of bigotry even when it's not there and blocking anybody you disagree with, above creating a constructive editing environment, which is exactly what I was concerned about how the essay would be interpreted. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "or be used to claim that editors do not have a conflict of interest even when it's obvious" I don't recall seeing anything about conflicts of interest in the essay, so I'm curious how you think that would work. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The phrase "That LGBT editors have an inherent conflict of interest and cannot write or speak neutrally about LGBT-related topics because of their identity." as an example of a problematic holding, was added to the essay before this MfD was started and remains there now. Some seem to be suggesting it would be used to claim that no LGBT editor could ever have a COI on any LGBT topic, which is not an obvious reading of it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, forgot about that one! And yeah, I fully agree. The "inherent" belongs in that sentence for a very good reason. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do think the word inherent is a nice addition to show that being LGBT doesn't automatically mean a COI. It's why I'm no longer advocating for the full removal of that bullet point, because it's less likely to be abused now. I do want it to be made more clear so that it doesn't get abused at all. I don't know how likely it is that others will interpret that bullet point the way I have, but it's not outside the realm of possibility, and I'd like to prevent editors from claiming they don't have a COI before it happens. Unnamed anon (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Essays like these will inherently be claimed by the people most affected may be the case - but that isn't a bad thing. The people who are subjected to bigotry are the people most likely to want the communities they engage with to not be bigoted. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As a good example, it certainly would be the case that trans people are more likely to be offended by deliberately deadnaming a murdered trans kid - because, in that case, the bigotry is being directed at them. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend a "no consensus" closure with a discussion opened up at WP:PUMP for broader community input. This is clearly a heated topic and needs to be worked out through discussion, not deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Knowledgekid87 is involved and !voted "delete" above. I am involved and I !voted "keep". I disagree with closing this MfD as that result, as there is clear consensus for keeping when you factor in the strength of the arguments, development of the discussion (people changing their !votes, or how there were more people arguing for keep after the first influx of delete arguments eventually lost traction)

  And even just by numeric count: 33 "keep" !votes vs 16 "delete"/"userfy"/"redirect" !votes clearly suggests consensus for keeping, with a lot of people on the latter just !voting "Delete per Another Editor". 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How does that count change when canvassed editors are discounted? BilledMammal (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What would there even be to discuss at the village pump?! it's not like we haven't discussed this more than plenty already! --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I generally agree with the essay Wikipedia:No pre-close summaries, please, and I'd encourage folks here to read it and consider if moves like this are likely to be helpful or harmful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.