Talk:Queer erasure

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

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

talk) 23:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:Content forking
issues

talk) 01:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]
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.
talk) 02:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]

talk) 03:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
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
talk) 03:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
talk) 23:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
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
talk) 23:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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
talk) 12:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

A policy on this matter in the Manual of Style?
talk) 08:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
" I do not think that this article necessarily needs to match the sources for this topic."
 !! —Mathglot (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mathglot. I agree that "queer erasure" is the common name. Cheers, gnu57 21:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
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

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)[reply
]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]

Requested move 18 May 2024

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ToadetteEdit! 14:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queer erasure → LGBT erasure – I'm opening this because in 2021 this page was moved by AFreshStart based on this discussion. However, CfD isn't above mainspace title naming. So I'm in favor of keeping Queer erasure. --MikutoH talk! 02:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Gender studies, WikiProject Sociology, WikiProject Human rights, WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, and WikiProject Discrimination have been notified of this discussion. --MikutoH talk! 02:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also tagging @Bohemian Baltimore, Marcocapelle, Place Clichy, LokiTheLiar, Sundostund, Bilorv, Skimel, DanielRigal, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, and Hydrangeans: who might be interested. --MikutoH talk! 02:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queer_erasure&oldid=1225604116"