Jump to content

Talk:Queer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trystan (talk | contribs) at 01:24, 2 October 2024 (Fix WPBS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Queer is an umbrella term" or "queer is sometimes used an umbrella term"?

@Sideswipe9th

Hey homie, The only mentions of queer as an umbrella term in the body is under the criticism section- "Some LGBT people dislike the use of queer as an umbrella term." The only other mention of the phrase "umbrella term" is in reference to the usage of the term gay as an umbrella term. In accordance with WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY I propose we change "queer is an umbrella term" to "queer is sometimes used as an umbrella term", as the body only disputes the notion that queer is a universally accepted umbrella term.

Note the google scholar search for "queer is sometimes used as an umbrella term" comes up with several pages of results demonstrating academic literature employing that exact phrasing. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C29&q=%22queer+is+sometimes+used+as+an+umbrella%22+&btnG= Tdmurlock (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I could have sworn we had content about it being an umbrella term in the article body. It's use as an umbrella term is decidedly uncontroversial, see Human Rights Campaign, UK National Archives, University of Florida, a 2019 research paper in Sexuality & Culture, Britannica.
To be honest, I'd maybe take a closer look at what's been written in the criticism section. Generally speaking we avoid criticism sections in articles, because they tend to be a nightmare to keep complaint with WP:NPOV. On the one hand I'd maybe look at more naturally weaving that content into other relevant sections. However, a large part of it, including the content that you're relying on (ie Some LGBT people dislike the use of queer as an umbrella term... is wholly unsourced. It seems that content was added back in May 2019 as part of a series of rewrites to avoid a different type of WP:CSECTION, though even then it wasn't sourced and the content it was re-phrasing was very poorly sourced to a site that we don't consider reliable.
Overall I think a re-write of that section, based on actually reliable sources, along with properly integrating the rest of the negative content into other relevant sections per CSECTION is in order here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty ignorant to pretend that the Q-slur is "decidedly uncontroversial", when dictionaries (including our own) as well as multiple style guides including those written by LGBT organizations say that it is still pejorative and should be approached carefully. Why would they need to specify any of it if it were "decidedly uncontroversial"?

The term q***r to refer to non-cishet people has spread since the 1990s—reaffirming if used as a self-identifier among q***r people but extremely offensive if used against them.
[...]
For some in the LGBT community, q***r is still offensive because some people still use q***r as an anti-gay or anti-trans slur. For an example of how q***r gets used in a derogatory sense (illustrating why using q***r as a slur is so hurtful), look no further than the schoolyard game Smear the Q***r, a variation of dodgeball where one student is the q***r who gets “stoned” with balls. --Dictionary.com word summary, emphasis mine

Current neutral and positive uses notwithstanding, the word's long history of pejorative use continued into the current century, and some people still find the word offensive in any context. --MW

q***r: Originally a pejorative term for gay, now reclaimed by some LGBTQ+ people. Use with caution; still extremely offensive when used as an epithet and still offensive to many LGBTQ+ people regardless of intent. --the Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists, emphasis mine

Q***r: A term used by some LGBTQ+ people to describe themselves and/or their community. [...] Traditionally a negative or pejorative term for people who are LGBTQ+, some people within the community dislike the term. Due to its varying meanings, use this word only when self-identifying or quoting an individual who self-identifies as q***r (i.e., “My cousin identifies as q***r” or “My cousin is a q***r person”). -- PFLAG National

JapanYoshi [Talk] 02:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize this can be a difficult topic, which makes it all the more important to uphold a high standard of WP:Civility; please don't call other editors ignorant. In the context of the above discussion, I don't think Sideswipe's comment was intended to imply use of queer was without detractors, but rather that its widespread use as a reclaimed umbrella term isn't factually in doubt.--Trystan (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's my read as well, and I second Trystan's advice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a neutrality dispute and weasel words to this article. First of all, queer IS NOT A UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED UMBRELLA TERM. The opening paragraph is also seething with judgment for those that do not identify as "queer," referring to them as "assimilationist." A neutral POV does not use a weasel word to describe the intentions of a category of people. Heliostellar (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory paragraph

Initial discussion

Queer Nation is a relatively obscure organization whose own Wiki page is flagged for having no citations whatsoever, but is cited in this article's intro. I'm removing it from the intro, since the article talks about it in greater detail below. Since the word itself is so controversial, I've added to the intro the current state of things from prominent, respected, objective sources that acknowledge the controversy: AP styleguide, GLAAD's position, PFLAG's position.

I also removed "assimilationist" language. That's a loaded weasel word that ascribes certain motivations and/or opinions to an entire category of people simply because of a word choice. Heliostellar (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen that this was reverted, I thought I'd offer my thoughts. I think the word is justified by RS, but it's always helpful to avoid claims of bias. So, how about this tweaked version?
"as a deliberately provocative and politically radical alternative to assimilation."
This way, we're not labelling a group or subgroup as "assimilationist" and thus there can be no claim of judgement towards any particular people themselves. Instead, we're saying this one political stance (provocation) was an alternative to another political stance (assimilation).
Thoughts? Lewisguile (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good to me. Both the Queer Nation and Queers Read This articles have several good reliable sources that would be helpful to incorportate here and might help further refine the wording in a way that would address Heliostar's concerns. I will try to get to that at some point.--Trystan (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I've made that change now. Thanks for offering to look at those other pages for more sources! Lewisguile (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Queer is not an umbrella term and numerous style guides agree that it should never be used without the individual's consent or unless they self-identify that way. Heliostellar (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Queer Nation and it's singular, anonymous publication from 1990 are not acceptable citations of the current use of "queer" as compared to GLAAD or PFLAG's current online style guides. Heliostellar (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Queer is an umbrella term and it's well referenced as such. This page documents that some people dislike its adoption as an umbrella term, as well as the history of the term. There is no reason to change the wording from the current way which already mentions the objections in several places DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are awfully confident about speaking on behalf of a community without citations.
From GLAAD's style guide (https://glaad.org/reference/terms):
Queer
An adjective used by some people, particularly younger people, whose sexual orientation is not exclusively heterosexual (e.g. queer person, queer woman). Typically, for those who identify as queer, the terms lesbian, gay, and bisexual are perceived to be too limiting and/or fraught with cultural connotations they feel do not apply to them. Once considered a pejorative term, queer has been reclaimed by some LGBTQ people to describe themselves. However, it is not a universally accepted term even within the LGBTQ community, so use caution when using it outside of describing the way someone self-identifies or in a direct quote. When Q is seen at the end of LGBT, it typically means queer. In a setting for support, particularly for youth, it may mean questioning. Ask people how they describe themselves before labeling their sexual orientation. (emphasis added)
The point of the story is that use of "queer" amongst polite company should be used in I-statements only and NOT collectively. Heliostellar (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire line about Queer Nation should be removed entirely from the first paragraph. It's an obscure organization with no citations that only briefly existed. Also, citing to a book literally titled "That's Revolting! Queer Strategies For Resisting Assimilation" inherently proffers a POV and has no business in an encyclopedic article--let alone the intro paragraph. Heliostellar (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose Helio's changes. The introduced sentence does not reflect the balance of sources, and the better source needed tag is erroneous. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it erroneous? The link is dead... and it's inherently an opinion held by Queer Nation--an obscure and defunct entity: " Willful participation in U.S. imperialism is crucial to the larger goal of assimilation, as the holy trinity of marriage, military service and adoption has become the central preoccupation of a gay movement centered more on obtaining straight privilege than challenging power." That's a whole political manifesto that doesn't belong here. Maybe you should put that content on their own page. Heliostellar (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about this one, and I do think we need a better source. I was responding mainly to the reason you included in the tag. I was mainly objecting to the reason parameter in the tag: "Ascribing one intention on behalf of all those who do not identify as queer is inherently POV and a weasel word." This does not ascribe an intention to all those who identify as queer, and since it's directly attributed, it's not weaselly. If there aren't better sources talking about Queer Nation's effect on usage of the word, we should remove it from the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are a fair number of reliable sources available that discuss Queers Read This as a seminal moment in reclamation of the word. Queers Read This#Identity and the term queer has several. I agree that this article's sourcing needs to be improved on that point.--Trystan (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your concept of "reclamation" is problematic for the following reasons:
  1. We are editing the introductory paragraph. We should not be introducing controversial "reclamation" POVs here, but we should acknowledge that the word is highly controversial.
  2. What you suggest is actually borderline advocacy in changing the public perception of the word. You clearly want the word to mean something specific, since you are implying a necessary evolution or "reclamation" narrative. This article should not be pushing narratives, and mainstream sources acknowledge the word only as a personal self-identifier.
  3. An obscure pamphlet from 1990 should never be referenced in an introductory paragraph on an article about a general topic. We have far more prominent and recent examples of published material to reference.
Heliostellar (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Merriam-Webster link already in the article directly contradicts the casual use of the term as an "umbrella term"
Usage of Queer
While the noun queer is used as a neutral or positive self-descriptor, it has a long history of pejorative use and is likely to be considered offensive when used by someone who does not identify as queer.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer Heliostellar (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sense 2b contradicts you, I'm afraid. But I think I see the issue at hand.
An "umbrella term" is one that covers a broad range of things. In this case, "queer" can mean the same as LGBT+. It doesn't mean "a generic term you can use to describe everyone". Your opposition seems to be towards the latter — i.e., that you don't think it should be used to describe all LGBT+ people, and I'm with you on that. But it is still an umbrella term, so it's right to leave that in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisguile (talk • contribs) 08:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I understanding your opposition correctly? Lewisguile (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is not commonly agreed that it is a neutral "umbrella term." I'm fine with editing it to call it a "highly controversial umbrella term" (since we are supposed to include all majority and minority views) but that edit has been reversed without sourcing a number of times. Heliostellar (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't love all the tags, but it's clear we have some work to do in the lead and body to better describe the 1980s change in use of the term. Until we have that worked out, I'd like to change the end of the first paragraph to just "Beginning in the late 1980s, queer activists began to reclaim the word as one of neutral or positive self-description."
On the other hand, in starting to look at stronger sources, the part about "umbrella term" is seeming stronger than ever. I think we should remove the dubious and OR tags on the first sentence per WP:WTRMT#3, namely that they "did not belong when placed". I would like to see us come to consensus on this relatively soon, since this gets a few thousand views per day. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on removal of the tags, this is clearly well sourced and supported by the reading of reputable sources. Raladic (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - This article already does a lot to mention the criticism of the term, no reason to obfuscate the definition when its usage is so well documented DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think there's been some confusion of umbrella term v contentious endonym. Whether we *should* call all LGBT+ people "queer" is a different matter to whether the term *can* refer to all LGBT+ people. Clearly the former is subjective and the answer will vary based on individual preference, whereas the latter is not only objectively true but also commonly understood. Lewisguile (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This entire chain is basically original research and just your personal opinions. I have cited:
  1. Merriam-Webster dictionary that cautions its use as an umbrella term.
  2. PFLAG suggests using only as a self-identifier--and not collectively.
  3. The Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists only recommends LGTBQ+ to avoid mislabeling someone.
There was no 1980s change in the use of the term, except maybe in your personal opinion--which is not encyclopedic. Heliostellar (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, "don't use this to refer to people without their consent" (what those sources all say) is not the same as "this term doesn't refer to a broad range of people" (which they don't). There are lots of terms that may be offensive when applied to people without their consent, but that doesn't stop the meaning of the word actually being capable of referring to broad groups of people.
An umbrella term doesn't have to be positive or neutral. It can be offensive or negative and still be an umbrella term. Lewisguile (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collins Dictionary:
Umbrella term
Term used to cover a broad number of functions or items that all fall under a single common category.
That's it. Nothing there says it has to be agreeable to the subjects being named, or that it can't be offensive, or even that the term has to be appropriate. It just has to be used to cover a broad number of things as a single category. Quite clearly, "queer" is used in that way, even if some people don't like it.
Another way to resolve this dispute would be to ask for reliable sources with due weight who say that it isn't an umbrella term (not that it shouldn't be one, which is a different matter). Lewisguile (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to resolve this dispute would be to ask for reliable sources with due weight who say that it isn't an umbrella term
Nice try. Burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, and you can't prove a negative.
Notwithstanding, I've pointed out numerous more widely circulated sources that caution that the word is not an umbrella term, and only a personal identifier.
Redefining as a well-known slur as a benign categorical term is inherently POV and advocacy. Heliostellar (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reposting my reply to DeputyBeagle below:
I think it's helpful to look to Wikipedia's own standards as to what is NPOV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view):
Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • The position that queer is not an umbrella term is easy to substantiate with--let's see--the dictionary, PFLAG (a non-defunct organization), GLAAD (also not defunct); and the Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists. In fact that users have to post to the talk page to openly solicit for sources that support the dubious "reclamation" narrative proves that it is in fact not a majoritarian view.
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • Again, use of broken links, obscure publications by defunct advocacy groups, etc. are not prominent adherents that deserve the same treatment as the references I've provided.
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
  • This is where I think most of this article already is.
Heliostellar (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that you're now in breach of the three revert rule (WP:3RR) and this can be interpreted as edit warring. Please stop making reversions to the page to get the text that you want on there.
As for the evidence you've already provided, it disagrees with your assertion, which is why I maintain that you don't understand what an umbrella term is.
Merriam-Webster, on usage of queer as an adjective (as in "queer people" or "the queer community"):
"But the adjective today is commonly used as a positive or neutral self-descriptor, and also has wide use as a neutral broad descriptor for a large and varied group of people."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer
This is a WP:RS stating clearly that this a common term used to describe "a large and varied group of people". Ergo, it's an umbrella term.
When describing the term's ability to be offensive, it says:
"Current neutral and positive uses notwithstanding, the word's long history of pejorative use continued into the current century, and some people still find the word offensive in any context."
The use of "some people" has to be contrasted with "widely used". Clearly, the plain-sense meaning of this is that a minority continues to find it offensive.
Referring to the section you quoted above, this specifically refers to the noun form (i.e., calling someone "a queer", not describing someone as being queer):
"While the noun queer is used as a neutral or positive self-descriptor, it has a long history of pejorative use and is likely to be considered offensive when used by someone who does not identify as queer."
The bolded parts are important. It's offensive to call someone "a queer" if you're not queer yourself. That's unsurprising and doesn't contradict the earlier guidance, which is for the adjectival form. Again, that's different to describing a group of people as queer (adjective).
I would be happy to describe queer as a "neutral broad descriptor for a large and varied group of people" (citing Merriam-Webster, of course) instead of an "umbrella term", but that will essentially be mean the same thing to a reader, and I'm not sure it would resolve your complaints. Lewisguile (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Negro" is a mixed use word/slur and the article there deals with it appropriately:
"The term can be viewed as offensive, inoffensive, or completely neutral, largely depending on the region or country where it is used, as well as the time period and context in which it is applied." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro Heliostellar (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same view as Lewisguile. Helio's evidence tends to point in the opposite direction as their arguments. We have many sources that describe queer as a neutral umbrella term, note its past pejorative usage, and identify that there are some that are still opposed to its use. That's roughly how our lead handles it right now. Given the rough consensus here against the tags, I'm thinking to give it another day or so and then remove them. Helio, unless you think you're going to change our minds, or are optimistic about another talk page watcher chiming in, you should consider seeking out some form of dispute resolution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The concern raised by the tags has been thoroughly discussed, and there seems to me to be a clear consensus that they are not warranted.--Trystan (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, also. Usage as an umbrella term is well documented and the continued insertion of tags could be seen as vandalism or edit warring (though I have alerted @Heliostellar to WP:3RR now, so I think we're all on the same page and that hopefully shouldn't happen going forward).
As an olive branch, I have also drafted something that could — with consensus — be appended to the end of the first paragraph in the lede. Though the opening is accurate and well sourced, I'd rather be overly comprehensive to reach a compromise than risk protracted debate and edit warring. So:
"Though its use as an adjective is generally considered neutral or positive today (especially when used to self-identify), its use as a noun may still be considered offensive (especially when used by people who are not LGBT themselves)." [Ref to Merriam Webster, current source 1]
This puts the two distinct usages of the word upfront, and draws a distinction between "queer people" and "queers" right there at the start. Without a separate article on the usage of “queer” as a slur, this seems balanced to me (since people will come here looking for that sense of the word too).
I did consider a "Usage" section distinct from the current "Origins and early use" section (which we could rename "Origins" or "Etymology") to go over the differences between the two, but thought this sentence would be simpler and comes earlier on (so it gets higher billing, as it were). This is all covered elsewhere in the article, but I do think the opening is the most vital part of the article and so it is sometimes worth being explicit upfront.
I'd still be up for drafting a "Usage" section, too, to summarise its use in language in a more technical sense, if people would prefer that. (Language is my jam!)
E.g. (needs polishing, but this is to show the rough format):
Usage
Queer can be used as both an adjective and a noun. The adjective form (e.g., “queer people”, “a queer person”, "queer theory") is used widely in the media and academia as a group descriptor, usually equivalent to LGBT and similar terms.[1] It may also be used more widely to refer to any nontraditional sexual and gender identities, although this usage is more contentious.[2] Usage as a noun (e.g., calling someone "a queer" or a group of people "queers") is less acceptable, and may be considered offensive if the person using it is not themselves queer or if they are using it to describe another person without their permission.[1][3][4] The term is always offensive when intended as a slur. [5][6][7]"
1: Merriam-Webster
2: Gabriel Kassel
3: http://bristol.ac.uk/style-guides/writing/inclusive/sexual-orientation/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20'queer'%20can,can%20be%20acceptable%20if%20relevant
4: https://glaad.org/reference/terms
5: https://www.apstylebook.com/blog_posts/7
6: https://www.nlgja.org/stylebook-on-lgbtq-terminology/
7: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101512
This article is clearly important to a lot of people, as shown by the responses on the talk page and the high daily traffic, so it's worth getting it right. I hope we can draw a line under this soon. Lewisguile (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heliostellar I didn't tag you properly, but wanted you to see this so you can see my suggestion here. Let's see what the consensus is. Lewisguile (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a step in the right direction if we're gonna offer a compromise and I'm generally in favour - but I do think making the distinction between noun and adjective in regards to its status as a perjorative is iffy. The dictionary claims the noun is also used as neutral or positive, even if it's used in a disparaging way more often than the adjective.
Also, I'd be opposed to using the style guides as a reference. Like I mentioned somewhere else in the thread, they're prescriptive - describing how you should use terms rather than how people do use them. If we want to use them as sources, we should probably rejig the sentence to explicitly mention that this is what style guides suggest rather than objective reality DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased this is useful. How about this as a slight rejig of the single-sentence summary:
"Though its use as an adjective or a noun is generally considered neutral or positive today (especially when used to self-identify), its use as a noun may still be considered offensive when used by people who are not LGBT themselves or when used to describe individuals without their permission."
For the longer version:
"Queer can be used as both an adjective and a noun. The adjective form (e.g., “queer people”, “a queer person”) is used widely in the media and academia as a group descriptor, usually equivalent to LGBT and similar terms.[1] It may also be used more widely to refer to non-normative sexual and gender identities, although this usage is more contentious.[2] Usage as a noun (e.g., calling someone "a queer" or a group of people "queers") may be neutral, positive or offensive depending on context. When used in-group or as a term of self-identity, it is typically considered positive or neutral. The term may be considered offensive if it is used as a slur, or if the person using it is not themselves queer.[1][3] Media style guides and LGBT advocacy groups argue the term may be considered offensive in any context, due to its historical use as a pejorative, and recommend permission should be sought when describing someone else as queer.[4][5][6]
According to sociologist Meredith G.F. Worthen, the term is becoming more common as a self-identifier: between 5–20% of all non-heterosexuals identify as queer, while 21–36% of those who identify as trans, non-binary or gender nonconforming also identify as queer.[3] In contrast, Worthen notes that queer is still used as a slur by one in four people as of 2023.[3]”
Refs:
1: Merriam-Webster
2: Gabriel Kassel
3: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101512
4: http://bristol.ac.uk/style-guides/writing/inclusive/sexual-orientation/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20'queer'%20can,can%20be%20acceptable%20if%20relevant
5: https://glaad.org/reference/terms
6: https://www.apstylebook.com/blog_posts/7
7: https://www.nlgja.org/stylebook-on-lgbtq-terminology
Note that the style guides would then only be used as refs for the part specifically referring to their viewpoint. Everything else is covered by the first three sources. Lewisguile (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drop "should" in "recommend permission should be sought". That was left in as a versioning error. Lewisguile (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort to find a compromise, but I think this would move the article in the wrong direction and ultimately lead to more problems down the road. Per WP:NOTDICT, articles should not encompass all meanings of a term, but focus on one concept. I think the pejorative use of queer is a fundamentally distinct concept to queer identities. It's related, and that relation is already quite thoroughly covered in the article. In other words, queer (slang) would be a different article on a different subject.
The proposed usage section and corresponding addition to the lead would blur those two subjects together. Given the topic of this article, increasing the emphasis on just how many people don't like it would not be an improvement. It also reads as very proscriptive, rather than descriptive, which is also not a road we should start down. When writing about controversial topics, which includes just about every LGBTQ+ topic, articles should strive to dispassionately convey the facts, and avoid undue emphasis on negative viewpoints, along the lines of WP:CRITICISM.
In reliable sources, discussion of queer identities hugely overwhelms discussion of the pejorative use. (Usage of queer has increased in sources about 20-fold since 1990, and that's almost certainly not due to any increase in its use as a pejorative.) The article should reflect that. Bringing the pejorative more into the scope of the article and giving it more and more emphasis would not be in line with NPOV.--Trystan (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article only mentions criticism in 1 sentence in the intro, and a tiny subsection called “Criticism” JapanYoshi [Talk] 23:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: I'm not sure my browser is properly saving my replies, as they keep getting mangled. Apologies if this shows up twice or the formatting is shot:

Thank you, Trystan. Perhaps I overdid it with the numbers in that last version, and should just take those stats out!

I mostly agree with you, as it happens, though I do think there's scope for discussion of etymology and language usage when we're talking about a specific word or term (and how it's used) as a subject. So much of the content of this article is already about meaning and use that it wouldn't really be out of place. But your concern is noted. (Maybe I could also drop the bit about adjectives/nouns and focus on “most people find it neutral or positive; a few still find it offensive”.)

Regardless, my thinking wasn't to make the article about both uses, per se, but to properly distinguish one usage from the other to better set expectations. I'm not sure the current article does that, and so people may have an expectation that it will cover both subjects when it doesn’t. That then leads to people with otherwise good intentions making bad or impassioned edits because they think the article is pushing a POV or erasing their own experiences.

If there are regular debates about whether or not it's a slur, it will eat up a lot of time and energy that could be spent doing other things. Multiple editors have had to get involved over the past few days, and I'm sure we've all got better things to do as the weekend approaches. It did occur to me that a new article could be started to cover usage of the word as a slur, but I was trying to kill two birds with one stone. If there were a second article, I suppose we could just add a disambiguation tag to direct people to "Queer (slur)" at the top, and then we wouldn't need to modify the lede at all. I'd certainly be happy with that.

However, I am also happy with the article the way it is, so you'll get no insistence from me that we have to include this wording or spin off a new article about the use of queer as a slur. I just thought it worth making the effort to reach a compromise, especially since I sympathise with those who may have also suffered at the hands of those who've misused the term (and it's better if we can get to a version of the article with which we all agree).

I'm being overly comprehensive again, so apologies for yet another essay. Lewisguile (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One other consideration: if there were to be a "Queer (slur)" article, would it result in this page getting moved to a more specific title such as "Queer (identity)"? That's one risk of separating the terminology. Lewisguile (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current structure of the article has been remarkably stable for many years, and that is due to it sticking closely to policies like NOT and NPOV. For topics that evoke strong real-world feelings in some readers, a certain level of perennial reiterating the application of those policies is inevitable. In the current instance, one editor, who is almost a WP:SPA, raised concerns, and several other editors reviewed those concerns and by and large disagreed. That's par for the course, though happily has resulted in very productive work on improving sourcing.
That some people find the word offensive is already covered in the lead. I don't think increased emphasis would comply with NPOV, nor is Helio likely to be satisfied until that is the primary topic of the article.
If queer (slang) were created, it would need to be determined whether this meaning or that one is the primary topic for the term, and so properly located at the undisambiguated name. I think it is this one by an order of magnitude, but that would be hashed out in a requested move of this page.--Trystan (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good points, well made. The suggestions are here for others to chime in anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about early reclamation of the term

Anyone should feel free to add to the list:

  1. Sycamore, Mattilda Bernstein (2008). That's Revolting!: Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation (illustrated, revised ed.). Counterpoint Press. p. 1. ISBN 9781593761950. Retrieved July 17, 2024 – via Open Library. Willful participation in U.S. imperialism is crucial to the larger goal of assimilation, as the holy trinity of marriage, military service and adoption has become the central preoccupation of a gay movement centered more on obtaining straight privilege than challenging power
  2. Barker, Meg-John (2016). "Reclaiming "Queer"". Queer: a graphic history. ISBN 9781785780721. In the 1980s, people in LGBT communities began to reclaim the word "queer" as either a neutral word to describe themselves, or as a positive form of self-identity. One early example was the activist group Queer Nation who circulated a "Queers Read This" flyer at the 1990 New York Pride march. Goes on to mention mainstreaming of the term, use as an umbrella term, and continued opposition to the term from older people and some queer activists who want the term to be used for those who are not just LGBTQ+, but outside of the communities mainstream.
  3. Kolker, Zoe M.; Taylor, Philip C.; Galupo, M. Paz (October 2020). "'As a Sort of Blanket Term': Qualitative Analysis of Queer Sexual Identity Marking". Sexuality & Culture. 24 (5): 1337–1357. doi:10.1007/s12119-019-09686-4. In the 1980s the LGBTQ community reclaimed the word as an identity label in order to break boundaries of binary ideas of sexuality and gender/sex. Queer has become more commonplace in modern media and television as well as being more readily adopted by LGBTQ organizations. Available via WP:TWL. Supports "umbrella term" and contrasts "queer" with assimilationism.
  4. Hanhardt, Christina B. "Queer History Article". Organization of American Historians. Retrieved July 18, 2024. ... the term's reemergence in the 1990s, spurred both by a political formation of militant and creative LGBT activists and by a new cadre of academic scholars. The members of Queer Nation, founded in New York City in 1990, and the producers and readers of what was labeled as "queer theory" by the next year, were by no means the first to affirmatively or wryly reclaim queer, but they set the word into a new play that changed the language and the methods of both social movements and academic scholarship for years to come.
  5. Bernstein, Mary (2002). "Identities and Politics: Toward a Historical Understanding of the Lesbian and Gay Movement" (PDF). Social Science History. 26 (3): 531–581. doi:10.1017/S0145553200013080. ... Queer Nation, formed in 1990 ... Queer nationals also reappropriated the term queer to include those lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people and anyone else who challenged the dominant sex/gender system. "Queer" was not a demarcation of one's sexual orientation but a statement against the normal. ACT UP and Queer Nation transformed discourse about sexual orientation, and queer theory remains a prominent strand of thought. Radical and progressive activists cheered the renewed emphasis on culture that moved beyond formal legal equality, while other lesbian and gay activists cringed as radicals appeared to threaten their "virtually normal" status

Continued discussion

Heliostellar response

According to Reliable Sources:
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" (emphasis added).
You seem to have a number of fringe, minority views thoroughly represented in the intro paragraph. However, the dictionary definition footnote doesn't even agree with your proposition that "queer" is an umbrella term.
  1. From Merriam-Webster (a/k/a fn 1):
"The adjective queer is now most frequently applied with its meanings relating to sexual orientation and/or gender identity, as outlined at sense 2 above. When these meanings were developing in the early 20th century, they were strongly pejorative, echoing the negative connotations of the word's older meanings, which included "weird," "suspicious," and "unwell." But the adjective today is commonly used as a positive or neutral self-descriptor, and also has wide use as a neutral broad descriptor for a large and varied group of people.
The term is also prominent as a neutral term in academic contexts that deal with gender and sexuality. Current neutral and positive uses notwithstanding, the word's long history of pejorative use continued into the current century, and some people still find the word offensive in any context."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
While these fringe books might sockpuppet your personal opinion, I am unclear how they supersede what dictionaries and other actual, neutral reference guides say on the subject.
  1. From Stylebook on LGBTQ+ Terminology that LGBTQ+ is the only acceptable "umbrella term":
"LGBTQ+
Acceptable in all references for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or questioning, and other sexual and gender minorities.
It may be tempting for journalists to refer to the LGBTQ+ community. In reality, it is a broad and sometimes loosely bound group of communities comprising people from all races, religions, cultures and walks of life. Referring to LGBTQ+ people is usually more accurate than defining it as one community.
There is not universal agreement on a name. LGBT leaves out many people who identity in ways that may be similar to but not the same as lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people.
Some alternatives exist but may be less inclusive, cumbersome or unfamiliar to general audiences and could require explanation. LGBTQ includes people who identify as queer or who are questioning their sexual orientation; LGBTQIA includes intersex, asexual and agender people; LGBTQIA2S+ specifically includes two-spirits and other sexual and gender minorities.
Writers and organizations should decide for themselves, based on their audience and intent, whether more or less specificity is needed."
https://www.nlgja.org/stylebook-on-lgbtq-terminology/
  1. From PFLAG:
Queer
A term used by some LGBTQ+ people to describe themselves and/or their community. Reclaimed from its earlier negative use--and valued by some for its defiance--the term is also considered by some to be inclusive of the entire community and by others who find it to be an appropriate term to describe their more fluid identities. Traditionally a negative or pejorative term for people who are LGBTQ+, some people within the community dislike the term. Due to its varying meanings, use this word only when self-identifying or quoting an individual who self-identifies as queer (i.e., “My cousin identifies as queer” or “My cousin is a queer person”).
https://pflag.org/glossary/#queer Heliostellar (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT is relevant here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so the article isn't going to cover all possible meanings of the word. The subject if this article is specifically on queer as a reclaimed identity. Other uses are discussed to provide context, but aren't really part of that subject per se.
Wikipedia is also not a style guide. The purpose of an article is to factually inform, not judge or provide usage guidance. The focus is therefore appropriately on describing the context in which queer was reclaimed and the evolution of it as an identity since then. Every single article on an LGBTQ+ topic could tie itself in knots emphasizing how many people disapprove of the subject being discussed, and while that sort of content can certainly be included in an appropriate way, it shouldn't get in the way of conveying the relevant history.--Trystan (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is that mainstream sources do not agree with this plain statement regardless of the fact that you want them to: "Queer is an umbrella term"
If Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a style guide, it is also not a publishing platform for fringe books.
You have plenty of fringe sources that you want to cite to, but that is not in keeping with:
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"
A naive person who looks up this article would think it is ok to call anyone LGBT "queer." That is not an accurate portrayal of the topic--even under this POV "reclamation" narrative. Heliostellar (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're really circling around the point @Lewisguile made earlier. WP is not here to say whether the term *should* be an umbrella term, just that it *is*, and that's objectively true.
Your style guides you point out are prescriptive. They say how they think it should be, not how it is. That's what they're for, but it means they're not suitable for this application
The whole article, including the lede addresses the history and criticism of the term, but this intro should stay how it is DeputyBeagle (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have an issue of whitewashing here. Edits to this article seem to want to redefine the term from being a well-known slur (a majoritarian position) to something solely benign (in the name of some kind of false neutrality), which is not the job of Wikipedia. Having the intro about a well-known slur not call it such automatically makes this article take on a "revisionist/reclamationist" POV.
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
"Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, communicating original ideas, offering novel definitions of terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that such material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion."
See also the "due weight" rule below that I think this article violates by giving so much deference to the "revisionist/reclamationist" POV.
Heliostellar (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's helpful to look to Wikipedia's own standards as to what is NPOV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view):
Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • The fact that the talk page has to openly solicit for sources that support the "reclamation" narrative proves that it is not in fact majoritarian.
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • Again, use of broken links, obscure publications by defunct advocacy groups, etc. are not prominent adherents that deserve the same treatment as the references I've provided.
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
  • This is where I think most of this article already is.
Heliostellar (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, from your own WP:NOT source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Encyclopedic_content):
"Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight."
Appropriate weight:
"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight Heliostellar (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my quotes from the Merriam-Webster definition you linked to upthread. According to that, it's the minority view that queer (when used as a noun) is offensive. Lewisguile (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, the definition with this disclaimer? "sometimes disparaging + offensive; see usage paragraph below"
It specifically cautions against it's use as an umbrella term. I have no problem with it being re-worded to stop implying that it is commonly accepted as an "umbrella term" when almost all of the popular sources caution against that specific usage.
You can also look at other articles for borderline slur words. They have no problem calling the word a slur in the intro to their respective articles. Specifically, the word "negro" which actually does have widespread legitimate use as a non-slur--unlike queer--plainly refers to it as a slur in the intro. Heliostellar (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To argue queer doesn't have use as anything other than a slur is frankly ludicrous.
The word has objectively been reclaimed. Whether you think it should is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is it has.
This whole article is about the history of the word and its reclamation. You seem more and more to be engaging in WP:POVPUSHING here DeputyBeagle (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heliostellar This is becoming disruptive now. We are engaging in good faith and you are only selectively engaging with what we say. The very quote you give says it is only "sometimes" offensive and disparaging. That makes its use as a slur the less common usage by default and so doesn't justify the changes you want. "Usually", "mostly" or even "often" all mean "more than sometimes". This is basic stuff.
I am about to make a longer post under Trystan's comment with a suggestion for a compromise, but please know we are all trying our best to be fair with you here, so we deserve the same courtesy in return. You haven't yet been reported for edit warring, even though WP:3RR clearly states that you can be reported for four or more reversions within a 24 hours (with leeway to report you if you make an edit slightly outside this time), and I count at least 7 edits where you either re-insert a tag or template or revert to an earlier version of the page which already had them within the span of 17–18 July. We are trying to assume good faith on your part here, because this is clearly an important topic, so let's not escalate this or make it any more difficult than it has to be. Lewisguile (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current introductory paragraph reads as if q***r is only an umbrella term that only used to be a slur, and criticism of it is a fringe position, when in fact, multiple dictionaries, and style guides written by LGBT organizations, caution that it’s still pejorative. I agree with Heliostellar’s revision from “an umbrella term” to “a word with a mixed history as a slur [...] and an umbrella term”. @DeputyBeagle seems to be the one doing the [[1]] here and arguing that "q***r" is NO LONGER a slur. JapanYoshi [Talk] 23:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not state that queer no longer has any pejorative use, or that its critics are fringe. The focus is on queer as a reclaimed identity descriptor because that is the subject of the article, and the article in turn broadly reflects and summarizes what reliable sources have to say on that subject (accepting always that there is room for improvement). The proposed change takes two fundamentally distinct topics (queer identities and queer as a pejorative) and tries to combine them into a single article, which isn't in line with the WP:NOTDICT policy.--Trystan (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the first paragraph says: "queer came to be used pejoratively against LGBT people in the late 19th century. From the late 1980s, queer activists began to reclaim the word as a neutral or positive self-description."
We openly say it was used as a pejorative and that it "began" to be reclaimed. I think that's balanced. Lewisguile (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

c. 1500, "strange, peculiar, odd, eccentric," from Scottish, perhaps from Low German (Brunswick dialect) queer "oblique, off-center," which is related to German quer "oblique, perverse, odd," from Old High German twerh "oblique" (from PIE root *terkw- "to twist"). For the suggested sense evolution, compare cross (adj.). But OED is against this etymology on grounds of timing and sense. Source: Oxford Etymological 145.224.67.37 (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This information is currently already in the article. Lewisguile (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International use for pre-modern sexual minorities

There is a modern understanding of LGBT culture and the term queer. This article frames the term "queer" as a global multicultural umbrella term including all gender and sexual minorities which the term "LGBT" does not include. I question this, and want to ask if anyone can show sources that communities which have traditional non-binary, non-heterosexual cultures and roles have adopted the label queer.

My intuition is that the term "queer" fits best in subcultures which are closer to United States cultural notions of the concept. The term LGBT has been popular for about 40 years, while the term queer has been popular for 20 years, and I am not convinced that the queer label is widely adopted. I feel like the concept that there can be LGBT people is nearly universal, but further notions of "queer", especially as a term which includes or supersedes or globally gathers traditional and indigenous identities, is not established with sources.

I propose as a remedy, this article get {{Globalize}} on it, until and unless we establish that the sourcing establishes global multicultural adoption of the term.

Here are some requests:

  1. Can anyone show evidence that some traditional or indigenous communities, especially outside of the wealthy global north, have adopted the term "queer" or a translated equivalent as an global umbrella term to describe themselves?
  2. Can anyone point to any international organization which makes a claim to meaningfully represent and speak on behalf of all sexual and gender minorities, and which advocates on behalf of all these people that "queer" is the term that everyone wants for self-description?

I have a suspicion that the sources cited in this article reflect the contemporary generation of people who are Internet-connected and who participate in global culture. I estimate that this is something like 30% of the world, and question whether applying the term "queer" to everyone else is really a globalized trend. It seems colonial to me. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...this article get {{Globalize}} on it, until and unless we establish that the sourcing establishes global multicultural adoption of the term. I think the article currently does a reasonable job of highlighting global examples of queer identities, such that the globalize template would be unwarranted. There is always room for improvement, so canvassing more sources and summarizing what they say would always be welcome.
The article can only ever summarize what the available sources say on the topic, so unless the sources happen to address the very specific points you raise above, the article won't ever address those points. I don't think any source is ever going to claim that "queer" is the term that everyone wants for self-description and I don't see how the article makes anything close to that claim. Rather, it specifically talks about people who object to the label queer.--Trystan (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trystan: The problem is that most of the cited sources are from the United States and they assume that readers are also. Although we are not doing WP:Original research, we can apply common sense to recognize when the authors are writing for a national audience rather than a global one. The cited source starts by saying, "Most people are familiar with the term LGBT", which is not true on a global scale, nor would it be reasonable to globalize the paper's other claims and assuming that most cultures have communities who actively label themselves with concepts like pansexual or asexual.
How would you feel about my changing the first sentence definition from
Queer is an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender.
to
Queer is an American umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender.
The sources cited - an American dictionary and the American Psychological Association - do not say that "queer" is an explicitly American concept, but those are culture-focused publications. I want to see a more global source. The second sentence, "From the late 1980s, queer activists began..." again refers to activists in the United States, and not anyone who felt that they were speaking for all sexual minorities in all societies. Again, those cited sources do not specifically say they are not global, but we should recognize that queer activism in NYC did not seek to represent or speak for indigenous traditions in rural India. When queer activists began using the term, they were talking about themselves, not applying the label to people in other cultures.
Do you follow, and can you think of a way to communicate this appropriately? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term isn't confined to the US, so I would not support defining it as strictly American. The article makes clear that the reclamation happened in the US, and provides some examples of global use, but certainly doesn't make any claims about its prevalence in rural India. To make specific claims about how use of the term is geographically distributed would require secondary sources discussing that topic.--Trystan (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just an American term and is used globally.
Just a quick trip to the German de:Queer article (as I happen to speak German) shows how the term is used as a term there widely in media, TV and paper, which even notes how German universities have queer studies courses. Raladic (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly object to the addition of text which further narrows this down to America. It's simply not accurate.
A quick search on Google Scholar for "queer identity global south" reveals some useful sources:
Indonesia and Malaysia: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-15809-4_4
Africa: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=enchBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA61&dq=queer+identity+global+south&ots=pEfmM9vnE3&sig=Dvnf0dKKBxaFPd47U2RfwtYtFlM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
China and Africa: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2059436420949985
Queer in the Global South: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10130950.2014.993832?needAccess=true
Queer in the Global South: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1wGSDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=queer+identity+global+south&ots=1KF2NQVIsx&sig=MYNrpTuSdfdpBZf-jxg7pV1q1Bk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=queer%20identity%20global%20south&f=false
Queer in the Global South: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-65021-0_7
Queer in the Global South: https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00382.x
Decolonising queer (for those in the Global South): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1744-8603-3-8
Queer in the Diasporas: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0950236X.2011.586773?needAccess=true
So obviously, the term is used when scholars and activists write in English, and you'd also expect an English-language bias when writing in that language. Clearly, there's going to be nuance in different regions of the world, and I support the effort to cover those. But I think that's different from claiming that the concept of "queerness" isn't used beyond the Global North. Lewisguile (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can cite from reliable sources that queer is considered an American term, this will be a different conversation. If you don't, this suggestion is really seeming like WP:OR
Even if you're right about it being a term confined to the US, which I don't agree with, you have to be able to prove it. WP:VNT and all that DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Brit here and it's definitely a term we use here without considering it an Americanism.
I don't think it's itnrinsically colonial for there to be an English-language term used to describe things outside the Anglosphere or outside the Global North. But in any case, to say that "queer" is an American term is simply not true. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewisguile, DeputyBeagle, OwenBlacker, and Raladic: Can any of you please pick a source which establishes the term as global to use as a citation for the definition in the first sentence? I am aware that there is incidental use in many places, but I am asking if there is a source where the author is bold enough to say that "queer" is the umbrella term for the world, and not just be using the term incidentally to talk about their own community.
Can I please remove the American dictionary citation and the American Psychological Association citations for this, which I feel are American? Do you all feel that all of these sources here are equally valid as citations for this? Bluerasberry (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page doesn't afaik claim the term to be global. If the intro started with "Queer is a global term", I'd oppose that.
It just states it as a term and you're reading it how you want to read it. It doesn't need a citation to prove it's not exclusive to America DeputyBeagle (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeputyBeagle: It really seems as if some editors here are arguing that it is a multinational term, because there is talk above demonstrating how various cultures and countries have use of the term. You are right, it does not need a citation to prove that it is not exclusive to America, but I do not think I am being unreasonable in asking if there are appropriate limits to how to use the term. When Wikipedia says, "Queer is an umbrella term..." to its global audience and we cite a paper which made that claim to a specifically American audience, then I feel we are changing the intent of the cited paper. How would you feel about the following change -
Queer is an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender.
to
Queer is an umbrella term{{Where}} for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender.
Queer is an umbrella term in some places for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender.
Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that this is the English-language Wikipedia, so without any other qualifiers, it means "is an umbrella term in English". But saying that would be pedantic because everyone reading it is already reading English and presumably aware of that fact. Lewisguile (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, it is a multinational term, but I don't think anybody is arguing we should explicitly state it as global in the article beyond the mentions we have of non-US countries. If we add the qualifiers, it makes it more vague and confusing. We don't have to make any statement on where the term is used, leaving it without a location qualifier doesn't have to imply anything. DeputyBeagle (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population the largest English speaking populations include India, Pakistan, and Nigeria. I believe that this article takes a tone and authority as if it speaks for those cultures. Are the Hijra (South Asia) queer? One celebrity, Laxmi Narayan Tripathi, is on English language television in India. There are other such people and communities around the world who either use English or speak English. I feel that this article communicates that traditional and indigenous identities are queer, and I think that is an overreach not backed by sources. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand even slightly how it makes that claim, can you point out which parts of the article specifically act as if they speak for India, Pakistan, etc?
And in regards to your question about whether those people/groups are queer - As far as WP is concerned, if RS describe them as queer then they are, if they don't then we don't take a stand on it DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One part of the article which makes an overreaching claim is, "Queer is an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender." This is not accurate; the majority of the people in the world who are not heterosexual and not cisgender do not self-identify with the term queer or the concept it represents. The sources cited, a dictionary and an American organization, are inappropriate as reliable sources for communicating in Wikipedia's global context. You listed a lot of sources above; can I just pick an arbitrary one and switch out the citation? How about this one -
  • Kole, Subir K (2007). "Globalizing queer? AIDS, homophobia and the politics of sexual identity in India". Globalization and Health. 3 (1): 8. doi:10.1186/1744-8603-3-8.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
It starts by saying, "Queerness is now global," and it goes on to say that "queers continue to identify themselves as hijras or kothis". The article overall talks about globalization of identity. I do not think it is a reliable source for the claim, but I think it is an improvement over what is there right now. Can you support adopt that source for the first sentence without other word changes, then be done. If anyone gets a better source then we can change out, but I want something that acknowledges multiculturalism. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it could in good faith be read as saying that every LGBTQ person identifies as queer. It is a term to describe it, but not everyone will identify that way. We don't need a caveat on it.
Also this article is specifically about the term queer so anywhere the term isn't relevant are inherently not part of the article. We dont need any caveats on the lede about whether it's a global term, it's just not relevant to the point of the article DeputyBeagle (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> I don't think it could in good faith be read as saying that every LGBTQ person identifies as queer.
Yet it’s been claimed over and over. Is Wikipedia causing it? Probably not. Is Wikipedia reinforcing it? I’d say so. Right now, the very idea that some LGBT people oppose the Q-slur, let alone that some gender-diverse people don’t identify as the Q-slur, is confined to 1 sentence in the intro and 1 sub section called “Criticism”. This article has a pro-Q-slur slant.
The very use of “LGBTQ” instead of “LGBT” signals your position as pro-Q-slur too. JapanYoshi [Talk] 23:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason lots of people think queer is an umbrella term is because that's how people use it. The common usage and scholarly consensus came before the article made that claim, not the other way around. Lewisguile (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article you reference is an interesting read. I have no problem with you, or anyone else, attempting to summarise the specifics of the term as used in South Asia, using this or other articles. I guess I just don't see why we need to prove the term is global if we're not saying it's global?
I'm also a little weary (and wary, I guess) because we just had a discussion about whether queer is an umbrella term, and this feels like a rehash of that. So what do you want here? Do you want a section on the use of queer in the global south? Do you just want to add an additional reference to the first sentence of the lede without otherwise changing anything? Or are you angling to remove the first sentence altogether? Your answer here may help us resolve this quicker. Lewisguile (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bluerasberry seems to be shopping various venues for consensus that not every gender or sexual minority across the world is aware of or identifies with the English umbrella term Queer, and therefore the article LGBTQ (about another, more inclusive English umbrella term) should be re-renamed to exclude the Q.
The reasoning feels POINTy and a bit motivated, and seems to address a straw version of these articles which make overreaching prescriptive claims about these terms and who they apply to—not present in a good-faith reading of the current text.
Per the sources collected, I would be interested in additional body text regarding adoption, use, and understanding of queer outside the anglosphere. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 09:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful context, @RoxySaunders. I would also appreciate more coverage of queer in the Global South and, to that end, did add a little bit about Malaysian and Indonesian queer movements. I may return to some of those links I found earlier at some point, but it may take me a while, so I'm happy for others to get stuck in sooner. Lewisguile (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think @Bluerasberry is reading this article in a biased way. The reality of the Q-slur is that adoption/acceptance very much varies with the country, as well as regions within it. You might live in a place that throws “q***r” around like it’s the word “the”, but much of the rest of us live in a place where homophobes and transphobes call us “q***r” to demean us.
---
Preemptive rebuttal: Reclamation is a personal choice. If you try to force someone else to reclaim a slur, you join in on the bigotry against them. Reclamation doesn’t “dull the knife”; it gives more knives to people you thought were one of you. JapanYoshi [Talk] 23:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a discussion of WP policy. If you can back up your statement with RSes in such a way as to show that's the consensus of experts, then it may be relevant. Otherwise, it's just your opinion. Lewisguile (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queer&oldid=1248895103"