- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering 21:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Click [show] for the other categories in this bundle →
- Nominator's rationale: Queer is currently used as a derogatory label for LGBT people. The Wikipedia article: Queer says "beginning in the late 1980s, queer scholars and activists began to reclaim the word ...". This categorization juxtaposes Wikipedia's voice as an advocate for such reclamation which is an inflection of bias. Many of the nominated categories, themselves, include a cautionary warning that states "this category may inappropriately label persons." This is a huge risk to take for a barely appreciable gain. The categories state that its members have self identified by this moniker but I have found cases where the sourcing is less than reliable. And it hardly matters how someone identifies their self when the chosen label is disruptively derisive at best. We would not (I certainly hope) institute a category scheme for S***s, N*****s, or M*****F*****s just because some who have formerly been targets of the pejorative slander decided to embrace, reclaim, and recast the label. While a minority may prefer such recasting, an untold majority are prompted to get over their disdain for the label, post haste. After all, what could be more mainstream than a Wikipedia category?--John Cline (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Rescoping of the parent Category:Queer was discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_5#Category:Queer; the discussion was relisted and kept open for two months without achieving consensus. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- While nominator has a fair point,
just plain deletion does not look right to me. The categories should probably be merged to their LGBT counterparts. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That would be controversial in itself, at least for people who self-identify as Queer. Per the main article: "Because of the context in which it was reclaimed, queer has sociopolitical connotations and is often preferred by those who are activists—namely, by those who strongly reject traditional gender identities; reject distinct sexual identities such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight; or see themselves as oppressed by the homonormativity of the politics of the broader gay or LGBT community. In this usage, queer retains its historical connotation of "outside the bounds of normal society" and can be construed as "breaking the rules for sex and gender". It can be preferred because of its ambiguity, which allows queer-identifying people to avoid the sometimes rigid boundaries that are associated with labels such as gay, lesbian, or even transgender." These are the type of people who accuse (self-identifying) gays of being overly conservative. Dimadick (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I left a notification of this discussion at WikiProject LGBT studies. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly oppose While some people do still find the word to be offence it has been largely reclaimed and has been used in tons of academic studies as well as everyday life for many years. There are tons of people that are within the LGBT comunity that identify as "Queer".★Trekker (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The reason I prefer deletion is that merging requires one to affirm a corollary relationship from one to the other which I strongly suggest does not exist. The one, rooted in bigotry, is an intolerant lie which, earlier, I called "pejorative slander"; it can not simultaneously be a legitimate counterpart of an objective classification that strives to remain devoid of the hateful underpinning that we might otherwise force-ably conjoin. Because they are not synonymous terms, it is highly probable that the majority of the subjects involved are already members of an LGBT category that one might mistakenly call the other's counterpart. I will research that probability and report on my findings as soon as I practically can. Meanwhile, I thank you for your reply.--John Cline (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Doesn't "queer" now mean a catch-all term for non-primary gender identities? For instance, following this article: [1] would suggest these categories should exist, but only for those who self-identify as queer. (Now, this may be a fallacy on my end, following that article.) SportingFlyer talk 14:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly oppose. The category is useful for identifying people that primarily or solely identify as queer. Excluding such people from our classification scheme because we judge their chosen label to be wrong and bad does a disservice to readers researching queer topics. It is also inherently non-neutral, especially if we dubiously claim to be acting on behalf of some offended silent majority.--Trystan (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This needs a lot less Wikipedian opinion, and a lot more in the way of verifiable, reliably sourced references. Both in general usage and usage for each of the category members. Right now, current application on-wiki is appearing to be subjective, which has me leaning towards Merge/Delete. - jc37 19:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Category:People who self-identify as queer would be a more adequate description and similarly for the subcats. Currently there are plenty of LGBT people in the tree of this category about whom the article does not mention whether they self-identify as queer, I suppose these articles should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely delete Category:Queer magazines, which serves no apparent function. Definitely keep Category:Queer theologians and Category:Queer theorists because queer theory and queer theology are recognized names of things (if necessary, purge it of people who are theorists/theologians and identify as queer but who do not do queer theory/theology). Rename others using Marcocapelle's "People who identify as" language to make it clear that we are not using it as an umbrella term, and purge members that do not belong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if some gay people do identify themselves as "queer", and their articles contain verified information to that effect, that does not mean that we need a special category for them when other gay-identifying categories exist, making a "queer people" category totally redundant and unnecessary. Wikipedia doesn't need a special category for each and every label that people may use to describe themselves. WP:OVERCAT applies. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's pretty amazing that you're making a straight faced comment like this while referring to all LGBT people as "gay". Most of those who identify as "Queer" would not be homosexual men. This comment reeks of ignorance on the subject.★Trekker (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - From the article Queer "is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or cisgender". I don't see sense in using a generic term to categorize.Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly Oppose as Queer encompasses identities that do not strictly fit into homosexual, bisexual, and transgender. Queer encompasses pansexual, genderqueer, intersex, gender variant, etc. These categories belong on Wikipedia. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.