Talk:LGBT erasure

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Uniipatel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:Synthesis and WP:Content forking issues

Uniipatel and Bennv3771, I reverted here because most of the text can be considered WP:Synthesis. For how it can be considered WP:Synthesis, see Talk:Slut-shaming/Archive 1#RfC: Is it WP:Synthesis to use sources that do not identify the topic as slut-shaming to make claims about slut-shaming?. In other words, it can be argued that editors should not be using sources that do not identify the topic as queer erasure to make claims about queer erasure. I get that it appears plain to see what queer erasure is and that the material I reverted is on-topic, but take note that the Straightwashing article does exist and that pinkface currently redirects to a section of an article. Except for the topic of homosexual behavior in animals, the content I reverted concerns those things. For example, with the "Gary Nunn of The Guardian" paragraph, the pinkface redirect addresses the casting of Jack Whitehall as a gay Disney character. I see that the source in the Queer erasure article for the Jack Whitehall material does call it an act of queer erasure; so I don't mind some content from that piece being added to the Queer erasure article. But per WP:Content fork, regarding the visibility and exclusion of queer people or characters, we should not have two or more articles covering the same thing. If there is a reliable source stating that straightwashing and/or pinkface are aspects of queer erasure, then that content can be merged into this article. Or that content can stay where it is and the content I reverted can be added to the Straightwashing article and/or to the section where pinkface is addressed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I think this it is not SYNTH to say that an article like "Resisting the erasure of lesbian sexuality: A challenge for queer activism" is about queer erasure, and the medical aspect is an important one. I agree there is significant overlap with Straightwashing, but I don't think all aspects of Hollywood mischaracterization necessarily fit under that title.--Pharos (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. There was clear synthesis in the article, such as the "Lesbian pulp fiction novels" section. And there are clear forking issues that need to be worked out. We can work together to assess what should remain and what should be excluded, and what article should mainly house these topics.

Mathglot, can I get your opinions/help on this since you understand WP:Synthesis and we both regularly address WP:Student editing? Uniipatel's edits are the result of student editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like to note that straight-washing is an act of queer erasure. Their results are queer erasure. But queer erasure as a whole ideology and practice is the results these individual acts create, not necessarily the individual acts themselves. Also, Sharon Marcus points out clearly what queer erasure is and how to combat it, which are also arguments made by the other scholars who were referenced in the article. Uniipatel (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Uniipatel, when proposing to merge this article with the Heteronormativity article, a discussion that is now seen at Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 13#Merge proposal: Merge Queer erasure here, I noted that there are barely any WP:Reliable academic using/defining the term/topic "queer erasure." That is still the case, which is why there were sources in your addition that don't use the term. We need reliable sources using/defining the term/topic "queer erasure." We shouldn't be defining/deciding what queer erasure is ourselves...even if it's obvious to us. Otherwise, we get content like the "homosexual behavior in animals" content and the "Lesbian pulp fiction novels" section you created; the source you used for that section is not about queer erasure. Regarding straightwashing, we need one or more reliable sources stating that straightwashing is queer erasure. With that, we could add a WP:Summary style section to this article on straightwashing while letting the Straightwashing article remain. And regarding pinkface, if a reliable source is included stating that pinkface is queer erasure, we could take all or most of the pinkface material from the article it's in and add to this article and have pinkface redirect to a section in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

And, yes, some content that I removed from the article, such as content from this source, should be re-added since it mentions queer erasure. If Sharon Marcus is applying "queer erasure" to non-human animals, then non-human animal content can be re-added (although, per WP:Lead, not in the lead until it's covered lower first). But this Bruce Bagemihl source, no matter if you only included it to further show what you meant, is not about queer erasure. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Manea, who is already cited in the Straightwashing article, says this is a form of "queer mnemonicide" or "erasure". I agree summary style would probably be appropriate, though like I said I'm not sure straightwashing per se covers all aspects of mischaracterization in the entertainment industry. The term of "queer mnemonicide" is also mentioned in several other sources and should probably be mentioned in this article as well, maybe in a section of the history of the concept.--Pharos (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Erasure has been discussed as an issue in RS on animal homosexuality [1], though I agree it shouldn't be in the lead.--Pharos (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Although the Manea piece doesn't use the exact word "queer erasure," it does state, " 'Straightwashing' is a term that has gained a great deal of discursive traction in recent years, offering a visually powerful metaphor for the practice of erasing LGBTQ characters, characteristics, and/or events." So that's good enough. Thanks. Straightwashing should definitely have a summary-style section in the article. Pinkface also needs a section in the article (with a source identifying it as queer erasure), since the Jack Whitehall case is a pinkface matter. I'm concerned about the MOS:NEO aspect of the terms, though. We should maybe have descriptive titles for them in the article, and mention the neologism terms in their respective sections. I'm not aware of Bagemihl speaking of queer erasure with regard to non-human animals or otherwise, which is why I stated that the Bagemihl source is not about queer erasure. I've read a good deal of that book and have used it on Wikipedia. Sources are not talking about non-human animals when they speak of queer erasure. Well, not usually. I mean, if it's a fictional, non-human animal, LGBT character, that character has a chance of being an example of queer erasure if queer erasure happens to it. But real-life non-human animals? We shouldn't take Bagemihl's words to mean that he is speaking of queer erasure in the sense that sources usually speak of it. Anyway, feel free to be WP:BOLD and re-add the material that should be re-added. Leave out the non-human animal material for now, and the "Lesbian pulp fiction novels" material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Then again, I can't get over the fact that the term straightwashing seems to cover all aspects of queer erasure, except for pinkface. The lead of that article currently states, "Straightwashing (also called hetwashing) is portraying LGB (lesbian, gay, bisexual) or otherwise queer characters in fiction as heterosexual (straight), making LGB people appear heterosexual, or altering information about historical figures to make their representation comply with heteronormativity." The Straightwashing article even has a "Current affairs" section addressing failing to mention that LGBT people are LGBT. I guess the "making LGB people appear heterosexual" part covers that, but the lead of that article can also clearly state something along the lines of "failing to mention that LGBT people are LGBT." I don't see that the Queer erasure article can really distinguish itself from that article, or distinguish itself enough, to not be seen as a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Because of this, I will likely propose that "Queer erasure" be merged with "Straightwashing." The term queer erasure can be a WP:Alternative name in the lead of that article. We could also go with "Queer erasure" as the primary title if it's shown to be more prevalent in media sources, or because it's the more descriptive title; WP:Precise. That title would make it easier to address pinkface in the article. Neither term is used much in academic sources, but "straightwashing" has an edge on "queer erasure" and is included in this Macmillan source (although that source limits the term to gay and bisexual people or fictional characters). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Manea merely calls straightwashing one of several forms of queer erasure, and does not say that they are synonyms. Queer erasure is not primarily about fiction. It deals with history and medicine for example, which you haven't contested, and in more academic works is sometimes called "queer mnemonicide". I also think it might be good at some point to start a more general article on Erasure (sociology) (NYT article).--Pharos (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not see that Manea calls straightwashing one of several forms of queer erasure. Again, Manea states, " 'Straightwashing' is a term that has gained a great deal of discursive traction in recent years, offering a visually powerful metaphor for the practice of erasing LGBTQ characters, characteristics, and/or events." Yes, Manea goes into the fictional topic when addressing forms of straightwashing, but Manea states "not limited to," and Manea's definition is not solely about fictional characters, and neither is the Straightwashing Wikipedia article. Regarding "queer mnemonicide," Manea states, "Straightwashing is thus a form of what Charles III has called 'queer mnemonicide': the erasure of LGBTQ memory sites in order to assuage heteronormative anxieties." That is clearly a different definition than straightwashing and queer erasure. This 2016 University of South Carolina Press source, page 68, also speaks of queer public memory, or queer memory, when speaking of queer mnemonicide. Really, "queer mnemonicide," a barely used term, is an aspect with regard to straightwashing/queer erasure. I don't see any sources stating that it's an alternative term for queer erasure. And I don't see that straightwashing is distinguished from queer erasure. Except for that restrictive Macmillan source (or any source like it), the definitions cover the same thing. So to reiterate, I'm not seeing a strong argument for having both a Queer erasure article and a Straightwashing article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. Consensus appears to be that the umbrella term would be useful if the article was a broad concept article but the scope of the article is specific to a subsection of the umbrella term. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Queer erasure → LGBT erasure – "Queer" is not a universally used umbrella term for LGBTQ people and can be offensive. LGBT is the widely accepted umbrella term on Wikipedia. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Bohemian Baltimore, it's a matter of what the WP:Common name is. On a side note: Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, newer sections go at the bottom. And that includes move requests. So I moved this to the bottom. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Bisexual erasure already exists and this doesn't seem like a broad concept artticle._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – 1. your argument is invalid; you cannot argue the meaning of a compound term based on the meanings of its constituent parts. "Driveway" is where you park your car, and "Parkway" is where you drive your car, even though a stranger to English (AE variety) might think it illogical. Putting it another way: this is not the article "Queer", and we are not talking about renaming it to "LGBTQ". 2. WP:COMMONNAME shows more than an order of magnitude difference in the two terms, in favor of the existing name. Mathglot (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support We could use a policy rule or point of guidance on this matter in the manual of style. This topic comes up repeatedly. I do not think that this article necessarily needs to match the sources for this topic, because this topic uses language from a broader global field. Many sources treat "queer" and "LGBT" as interchangeable, and sources cited here do also. We should not repeatedly have this discussion for every case. I feel that Wikipedia has sided to using LGBT as the default term for the general concept, and I think it is fine to place that term in all use cases unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A policy on this matter in the Manual of Style? Policies are different than guidelines. And we already have a policy on this -- WP:Common name. And speaking of "broader," although the initialism "LGBT" is an umbrella category, the term queer is commonly seen as broader than "LGBT," which is why (as noted in the LGBT article) people are always adding an extra letter on to the initialism. "LGBTQ" isn't even representative enough to some people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The data says that queer erasure is 15 times as common as lgbt erasure. Also, one cannot extrapolate from queer and LGBT, to compound expressions which contain those terms. Language simply does not work that way, and arguments based on such extrapolation are invalid. Mathglot (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Flyer- I corrected my language about policy. Behind the scenes, meta:Wikimedia LGBT+ has settled on "LGBT+" as the best term, and I agree with that, although only the Wikimedia community uses this term. I do not recognize any broad global consensus off-wiki for distinguishing "LGBT" from "queer" from "LGBTQ", but it seems like a matter of fact that "LGBT" is the term with most and broadest use. This is a space where every 5-10 years for the last 50 years the preferred terms have changed in mass media, and locally there is even more variation.

Mathglot - I agree that "queer erasure" as a term appears more than "LGBT erasure", but I see the major issue here as Wikipedia's general use of queer versus LGBT and not this particular case. I advocate for consistency across wiki reached by consensus in a rule in the manual of style. There are lots of discussions of which term to use. Another reason to not prefer the sources here is because academics of a certain era used "queer erasure" as their term in the academic sources cited here, when this Wikipedia article is of broad interest to a community and not academically focused. I feel that we can discard the academic precedent and use a standard term for the community rather than use the less common label that academics chose to apply. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

" I do not think that this article necessarily needs to match the sources for this topic."

 !! —Mathglot (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Mathglot. I agree that "queer erasure" is the common name. Cheers, gnu57 21:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scope of article?

Hi! I'm a bit concerned about the exact scope of this article. Considering that Wikipedia already has significant articles about bisexual erasure and lesbian erasure, as well as passive mention of asexual erasure, this article has very little in terms of meaningful content, not to mention that it's a stub at best. In fact, this article, to me, is bordering on being up for CSD A10. Would this article be better as an article about only gay erasure? Alternatively, is it worth summarising the above articles, plus asexual erasure, transgender erasure, and gay erasure, in their own sections here (with {{main}})? ItsPugle (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that Wikipedia has NO article at all that is strictly about gay erasure and/or homosexual erasure; gay erasure merely gets lumped into a stub on "queer erasure", while all other constituent categories of "queer", plus asexual, all have their own erasure articles (as they ought, but all of these things are clearly not equal..e.g., the notion of asexual people being denied civil rights in the way that homosexual folk, bisexual folk, women, coloured folk, transfolk (including transexuals) have been historically on account of their being asexual is patently absurd. If proving consummation in order to validate a marriage were still required, there may be a case, but as it currently stands...). Sorry for the tangent. Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree it’s more than a little disturbing that the article on queer erasure erases gay men. Especially when all other groups have not only sections but full articles. 193.27.45.80 (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It's been four years and imho this article remains inordinately broad. Second the proposal, personally, to chuck it at Wikipedia:A10, unless something can be done to tighten up the criteria for inclusion here, as the article has become a bit of a vague, redundant mess. Tdmurlock (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)