Category talk:LGBT individuals - Revision history

Soranin: /* Why? */

2026-05-19T15:20:25Z

Why?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:20, 19 May 2026
Line 4:		Line 4:
	Why does this page exist? LGBT is a term that wasn't around for most of the charaters so they couldn't indentify with it and it would be better if you do a category of just homosexual individuals and another on bisexual individuals, even one category on bisexual and homosexual individuals. Trangender individuals should be it's on category as sexual orientation is very different from gender identity and even though they share the same community today, I don't think we should project that on the historic characters.[[User:Abelzorus Prime\|Abelzorus Prime]] ([[User talk:Abelzorus Prime\|talk]]) 02:59, June 4, 2016 (UTC)		Why does this page exist? LGBT is a term that wasn't around for most of the charaters so they couldn't indentify with it and it would be better if you do a category of just homosexual individuals and another on bisexual individuals, even one category on bisexual and homosexual individuals. Trangender individuals should be it's on category as sexual orientation is very different from gender identity and even though they share the same community today, I don't think we should project that on the historic characters.[[User:Abelzorus Prime\|Abelzorus Prime]] ([[User talk:Abelzorus Prime\|talk]]) 02:59, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

	:This is a touchy issue, and rightfully so. Some months back, the community was split on the issue, discussing their reasons for/against the category on [[Category talk:LGBT\|the talk page]]. In March, a [[Thread:205425\|Forum poll]] was made and voted on, with the results leaning towards renaming the category. True, the poll is ''far'' from representative of all users, but (1) statistically, you can never collect all poll results, as we have many inactive / infrequent users, and (2) they ''are'' the Staff, they earned their Admin rights for a reason and wield their powers in a way they think is best for the wiki. Hope this helps. --[[User:Darman36\|Darman]] ([[User talk:Darman36\|talk]]) 04:25, June 6, 2016 (UTC)		:This is a touchy issue, and rightfully so. Some months back, the community was split on the issue, discussing their reasons for/against the category on [[Category talk:LGBT\|the talk page]]. In March, a [Thread:205425\|Forum poll]] was made and voted on, with the results leaning towards renaming the category. True, the poll is ''far'' from representative of all users, but (1) statistically, you can never collect all poll results, as we have many inactive / infrequent users, and (2) they ''are'' the Staff, they earned their Admin rights for a reason and wield their powers in a way they think is best for the wiki. Hope this helps. --[[User:Darman36\|Darman]] ([[User talk:Darman36\|talk]]) 04:25, June 6, 2016 (UTC)

	==Revisiting the category==		==Revisiting the category==

Soranin: Text replacement - "siniath" to "siniath"

2026-05-10T18:00:31Z

Text replacement - "siniath" to "siniath"

imported>Sol Pacificus: Reverted edits by Soranin (talk) to last revision by Lacrossedeamon

2021-04-05T09:46:07Z

Reverted edits by Soranin (talk) to last revision by Lacrossedeamon

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:46, 5 April 2021
Line 53:		Line 53:
	As an aside to my last comment above, on the matter of whether we can apply modern concepts retrospectively to history for time periods where the people then did not have that concept, I would argue that it doesn't always amount to revisionism. The reason is because sometimes we are merely conceptualizing a phenomenon that existed then in our own modern language. The people then might not share the exact same way of conceptualizing that phenomenon; they may have a different word for it or relate it through a different concept we don't have, but it doesn't mean that that phenomenon didn't exist. In fact, this is true even in the contemporary would between different cultures, societies, and languages.		As an aside to my last comment above, on the matter of whether we can apply modern concepts retrospectively to history for time periods where the people then did not have that concept, I would argue that it doesn't always amount to revisionism. The reason is because sometimes we are merely conceptualizing a phenomenon that existed then in our own modern language. The people then might not share the exact same way of conceptualizing that phenomenon; they may have a different word for it or relate it through a different concept we don't have, but it doesn't mean that that phenomenon didn't exist. In fact, this is true even in the contemporary would between different cultures, societies, and languages.

	I will provide two examples. Yesterday, the question of what is a scimitar came up on Discord. The word ''scimitar'' is, as far as we know, a catch-all, vague term used by Europeans for any "oriental" (though in practice just Middle Eastern) curved, single-edged sword, ranging from the Egyptian ''[[khopesh]]'', the Persian ''shamshir'', the Indian ''[[talwar]]'', to the Turkish ''kilij''. These peoples probably don't have a word in their language which specifically is defined as "a saber of oriental origin" although they may have a word which means ''saber'' in general regardless of origin, even European. I don't know Arabic, Coptic, Turkish, Farsi, or any Indian language, so I am not sure on this. The question stands though: "do scimitars exist?" Well, one might say that yes, because some people today conceptualize scimitars, but isn't that those outside people imposing this concept onto those other peoples? Just as we modern...ers would be imposing our modern conceptualizations onto historical peoples, as others to locals? The objects that the word ''scimitar'' describes ''do'' exist because "oriental" sabers do exist. The catch is that for those "oriental" peoples, they don't have a concept of this being a specific category. They may have a different categorization system. Does this make the concept of ''scimitar'' invalid then? Only if the fact it is ill-defined were to make it invalid, but it is just one particular way that a group of people decided to categorize objects they interact with and study.		I will provide two examples. Yesterday, the question of what is a scimitar came up on Discord. The word ''scimitar'' is, as far as we know, a catch-all, vague term used by Europeans for any "oriental" (though in practice just Middle Eastern) curved, single-edged sword, ranging from the Egyptian ''[[khopesh]]'', the Persian ''shamshir'', the Indian ''[[talwar]]'', to the Turkish ''[[kilij]]''. These peoples probably don't have a word in their language which specifically is defined as "a saber of oriental origin" although they may have a word which means ''saber'' in general regardless of origin, even European. I don't know Arabic, Coptic, Turkish, Farsi, or any Indian language, so I am not sure on this. The question stands though: "do scimitars exist?" Well, one might say that yes, because some people today conceptualize scimitars, but isn't that those outside people imposing this concept onto those other peoples? Just as we modern...ers would be imposing our modern conceptualizations onto historical peoples, as others to locals? The objects that the word ''scimitar'' describes ''do'' exist because "oriental" sabers do exist. The catch is that for those "oriental" peoples, they don't have a concept of this being a specific category. They may have a different categorization system. Does this make the concept of ''scimitar'' invalid then? Only if the fact it is ill-defined were to make it invalid, but it is just one particular way that a group of people decided to categorize objects they interact with and study.

	If this example isn't the best because it's cross-culture not so much cross-time, then I will refer back to the debate over whether ''sovereignty'' existed in the past. See, many political scholars assert that ''sovereignty'' is a modern concept which describes the status of a state who is at the highest tier of societal organization: there is no greater authority above this state. At the same time, a sovereign state must have fixed and clearly defined borders, as any state by definition needs, and legitimate sovereign states nowadays must be mostly recognized by other sovereign states and therefore not be subject to invasion on a whim. It is commonly taught by political professors that sovereign states did not exist prior to modern times, and therefore it is anachronistic to describe countries like the Roman Empire, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, the Han dynasty, the Mughal Empire, etc. as sovereign states. The argument goes that people in those days did not have this belief, this concept of an official status of states with no greater authority above them, stipulated by international law, such that all who share that status are equal with one another. After all, historical states were always subject to being conquered and treated as vassals or tributaries by greater powers. By extension, sovereign states did not exist before modern times.		If this example isn't the best because it's cross-culture not so much cross-time, then I will refer back to the debate over whether ''sovereignty'' existed in the past. See, many political scholars assert that ''sovereignty'' is a modern concept which describes the status of a state who is at the highest tier of societal organization: there is no greater authority above this state. At the same time, a sovereign state must have fixed and clearly defined borders, as any state by definition needs, and legitimate sovereign states nowadays must be mostly recognized by other sovereign states and therefore not be subject to invasion on a whim. It is commonly taught by political professors that sovereign states did not exist prior to modern times, and therefore it is anachronistic to describe countries like the Roman Empire, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, the Han dynasty, the Mughal Empire, etc. as sovereign states. The argument goes that people in those days did not have this belief, this concept of an official status of states with no greater authority above them, stipulated by international law, such that all who share that status are equal with one another. After all, historical states were always subject to being conquered and treated as vassals or tributaries by greater powers. By extension, sovereign states did not exist before modern times.

imported>Soranin: /* On historical relativism */

2021-04-03T15:22:35Z

On historical relativism

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:22, 3 April 2021
Line 53:		Line 53:
	As an aside to my last comment above, on the matter of whether we can apply modern concepts retrospectively to history for time periods where the people then did not have that concept, I would argue that it doesn't always amount to revisionism. The reason is because sometimes we are merely conceptualizing a phenomenon that existed then in our own modern language. The people then might not share the exact same way of conceptualizing that phenomenon; they may have a different word for it or relate it through a different concept we don't have, but it doesn't mean that that phenomenon didn't exist. In fact, this is true even in the contemporary would between different cultures, societies, and languages.		As an aside to my last comment above, on the matter of whether we can apply modern concepts retrospectively to history for time periods where the people then did not have that concept, I would argue that it doesn't always amount to revisionism. The reason is because sometimes we are merely conceptualizing a phenomenon that existed then in our own modern language. The people then might not share the exact same way of conceptualizing that phenomenon; they may have a different word for it or relate it through a different concept we don't have, but it doesn't mean that that phenomenon didn't exist. In fact, this is true even in the contemporary would between different cultures, societies, and languages.

	I will provide two examples. Yesterday, the question of what is a scimitar came up on Discord. The word ''scimitar'' is, as far as we know, a catch-all, vague term used by Europeans for any "oriental" (though in practice just Middle Eastern) curved, single-edged sword, ranging from the Egyptian ''[[khopesh]]'', the Persian ''shamshir'', the Indian ''[[talwar]]'', to the Turkish ''[[kilij]]''. These peoples probably don't have a word in their language which specifically is defined as "a saber of oriental origin" although they may have a word which means ''saber'' in general regardless of origin, even European. I don't know Arabic, Coptic, Turkish, Farsi, or any Indian language, so I am not sure on this. The question stands though: "do scimitars exist?" Well, one might say that yes, because some people today conceptualize scimitars, but isn't that those outside people imposing this concept onto those other peoples? Just as we modern...ers would be imposing our modern conceptualizations onto historical peoples, as others to locals? The objects that the word ''scimitar'' describes ''do'' exist because "oriental" sabers do exist. The catch is that for those "oriental" peoples, they don't have a concept of this being a specific category. They may have a different categorization system. Does this make the concept of ''scimitar'' invalid then? Only if the fact it is ill-defined were to make it invalid, but it is just one particular way that a group of people decided to categorize objects they interact with and study.		I will provide two examples. Yesterday, the question of what is a scimitar came up on Discord. The word ''scimitar'' is, as far as we know, a catch-all, vague term used by Europeans for any "oriental" (though in practice just Middle Eastern) curved, single-edged sword, ranging from the Egyptian ''[[khopesh]]'', the Persian ''shamshir'', the Indian ''[[talwar]]'', to the Turkish ''kilij''. These peoples probably don't have a word in their language which specifically is defined as "a saber of oriental origin" although they may have a word which means ''saber'' in general regardless of origin, even European. I don't know Arabic, Coptic, Turkish, Farsi, or any Indian language, so I am not sure on this. The question stands though: "do scimitars exist?" Well, one might say that yes, because some people today conceptualize scimitars, but isn't that those outside people imposing this concept onto those other peoples? Just as we modern...ers would be imposing our modern conceptualizations onto historical peoples, as others to locals? The objects that the word ''scimitar'' describes ''do'' exist because "oriental" sabers do exist. The catch is that for those "oriental" peoples, they don't have a concept of this being a specific category. They may have a different categorization system. Does this make the concept of ''scimitar'' invalid then? Only if the fact it is ill-defined were to make it invalid, but it is just one particular way that a group of people decided to categorize objects they interact with and study.

	If this example isn't the best because it's cross-culture not so much cross-time, then I will refer back to the debate over whether ''sovereignty'' existed in the past. See, many political scholars assert that ''sovereignty'' is a modern concept which describes the status of a state who is at the highest tier of societal organization: there is no greater authority above this state. At the same time, a sovereign state must have fixed and clearly defined borders, as any state by definition needs, and legitimate sovereign states nowadays must be mostly recognized by other sovereign states and therefore not be subject to invasion on a whim. It is commonly taught by political professors that sovereign states did not exist prior to modern times, and therefore it is anachronistic to describe countries like the Roman Empire, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, the Han dynasty, the Mughal Empire, etc. as sovereign states. The argument goes that people in those days did not have this belief, this concept of an official status of states with no greater authority above them, stipulated by international law, such that all who share that status are equal with one another. After all, historical states were always subject to being conquered and treated as vassals or tributaries by greater powers. By extension, sovereign states did not exist before modern times.		If this example isn't the best because it's cross-culture not so much cross-time, then I will refer back to the debate over whether ''sovereignty'' existed in the past. See, many political scholars assert that ''sovereignty'' is a modern concept which describes the status of a state who is at the highest tier of societal organization: there is no greater authority above this state. At the same time, a sovereign state must have fixed and clearly defined borders, as any state by definition needs, and legitimate sovereign states nowadays must be mostly recognized by other sovereign states and therefore not be subject to invasion on a whim. It is commonly taught by political professors that sovereign states did not exist prior to modern times, and therefore it is anachronistic to describe countries like the Roman Empire, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, the Han dynasty, the Mughal Empire, etc. as sovereign states. The argument goes that people in those days did not have this belief, this concept of an official status of states with no greater authority above them, stipulated by international law, such that all who share that status are equal with one another. After all, historical states were always subject to being conquered and treated as vassals or tributaries by greater powers. By extension, sovereign states did not exist before modern times.

imported>Lacrossedeamon: /* Name change? */

2020-06-14T04:23:18Z

Name change?

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:23, 14 June 2020
Line 75:		Line 75:
	Agreed.--[[User:ACsenior\|ACsenior]] ([[User talk:ACsenior\|talk]]) 21:45, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		Agreed.--[[User:ACsenior\|ACsenior]] ([[User talk:ACsenior\|talk]]) 21:45, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	:I'll just say keep it where it is. Less hassle, also whats the plus? Queer and intersex are among them, which to my knowledge no AC characters are. There are Lesbian, Gay, Bi, and Trans characters however. So, thats my vote. Keep as "LGBT individuals."[[User:VilkaTheWolf\|<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 1px; color:white;"><span style="font-family: Impact"><span style="color: green">V </span><span style="color: gold">i </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">k </span><span style="color: green">a </span><span style="color: gold">T </span><span style="color: green">h </span><span style="color: gold">e </span><span style="color: green">W </span><span style="color: gold">o </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">f </span></span></span>]] ([[User talk:Boofhead185\|talk]]) 03:38, June 14, 2020 (UTC)		:I'll just say keep it where it is. Less hassle, also whats the plus? Queer and intersex are among them, which to my knowledge no AC characters are. There are Lesbian, Gay, Bi, and Trans characters however. So, thats my vote. Keep as "LGBT individuals."[[User:VilkaTheWolf\|<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 1px; color:white;"><span style="font-family: Impact"><span style="color: green">V </span><span style="color: gold">i </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">k </span><span style="color: green">a </span><span style="color: gold">T </span><span style="color: green">h </span><span style="color: gold">e </span><span style="color: green">W </span><span style="color: gold">o </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">f </span></span></span>]] ([[User talk:Boofhead185\|talk]]) 03:38, June 14, 2020 (UTC)
			::In the essence of equal representation I've skimmed through some umbrella terms such as MSGI, GSM/SGM, GSRM, GSD, MOGII, and MOGAI because there could be an argument that while LGBT+ is more inclusive to those that fall outside the umbrella of just LGBT such as intersex or asexual it could still be seen as marginalizing them as they don't get their own initial in the anagram. However those other umbrella terms while being more inclusive without using specific labels do not see wide usage and would most likely confuse readers but I still bring them to the discussion as possible options. As an aside we technically do have intersex mythology figures mentioned without being explicitly stated such as Hapi. Phanes would be another but as an Isu I am uncertain of how to go about that unless explicitly stated which it isn't. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 04:23, June 14, 2020 (UTC)

imported>VilkaTheWolf: /* Name change? */

2020-06-14T03:38:41Z

Name change?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:38, 14 June 2020
Line 74:		Line 74:
	:Not agreed as we haven't decide where was the limit. Did we counted Maxwell Roth just because he kissed one guy without anything further?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 20:13, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:Not agreed as we haven't decide where was the limit. Did we counted Maxwell Roth just because he kissed one guy without anything further?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 20:13, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	Agreed.--[[User:ACsenior\|ACsenior]] ([[User talk:ACsenior\|talk]]) 21:45, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		Agreed.--[[User:ACsenior\|ACsenior]] ([[User talk:ACsenior\|talk]]) 21:45, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
			:I'll just say keep it where it is. Less hassle, also whats the plus? Queer and intersex are among them, which to my knowledge no AC characters are. There are Lesbian, Gay, Bi, and Trans characters however. So, thats my vote. Keep as "LGBT individuals."[[User:VilkaTheWolf\|<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 1px; color:white;"><span style="font-family: Impact"><span style="color: green">V </span><span style="color: gold">i </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">k </span><span style="color: green">a </span><span style="color: gold">T </span><span style="color: green">h </span><span style="color: gold">e </span><span style="color: green">W </span><span style="color: gold">o </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">f </span></span></span>]] ([[User talk:Boofhead185\|talk]]) 03:38, June 14, 2020 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Revisiting the category */

2020-06-13T21:52:04Z

Revisiting the category

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:52, 13 June 2020
Line 50:		Line 50:
	:I don't say I vote against, I want to discuss about the redefinition and have the argument of others. Also you forgot Lacrosse, what a rigged vote (i'm joking).[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 17:33, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:I don't say I vote against, I want to discuss about the redefinition and have the argument of others. Also you forgot Lacrosse, what a rigged vote (i'm joking).[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 17:33, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

	;On historical relativism		===On historical relativism===
	As an aside to my last comment above, on the matter of whether we can apply modern concepts retrospectively to history for time periods where the people then did not have that concept, I would argue that it doesn't always amount to revisionism. The reason is because sometimes we are merely conceptualizing a phenomenon that existed then in our own modern language. The people then might not share the exact same way of conceptualizing that phenomenon; they may have a different word for it or relate it through a different concept we don't have, but it doesn't mean that that phenomenon didn't exist. In fact, this is true even in the contemporary would between different cultures, societies, and languages.		As an aside to my last comment above, on the matter of whether we can apply modern concepts retrospectively to history for time periods where the people then did not have that concept, I would argue that it doesn't always amount to revisionism. The reason is because sometimes we are merely conceptualizing a phenomenon that existed then in our own modern language. The people then might not share the exact same way of conceptualizing that phenomenon; they may have a different word for it or relate it through a different concept we don't have, but it doesn't mean that that phenomenon didn't exist. In fact, this is true even in the contemporary would between different cultures, societies, and languages.

	I will provide two examples. Yesterday, the question of what is a scimitar came up on Discord. The word ''scimitar'' is, as far as we know, a catch-all, vague term used by Europeans for any "oriental" (though in practice just Middle Eastern) curved, single-edged sword, ranging from the Egyptian ''[[khopesh]]'', the Persian ''shamshir'', the Indian ''[[talwar]]'', to the Turkish ''[[kilij]]''. These peoples probably don't have a word in their language which specifically is defined as "a saber of oriental origin" although they may have a word which means ''saber'' in general regardless of origin, even European. I don't know Arabic, Coptic, Turkish, Farsi, or any Indian language, so I am not sure on this. The question stands though: "do scimitars exist?" Well, one might say that yes, because some people today conceptualize scimitars, but isn't that those outside people imposing this concept onto those other peoples? Just as we modern...ers would be imposing our modern conceptualizations onto historical peoples, as others to locals? The objects that the word ''scimitar'' describes ''do'' exist because "oriental" sabers do exist. The catch is that for those "oriental" peoples, they don't have a concept of this being a specific category. They may have a different categorization system. Does this make the concept of ''scimitar'' invalid then? Only if the fact it is ill-defined were to make it invalid, but it is just one particular way that a group of people decided to categorize objects they interact with and study.		I will provide two examples. Yesterday, the question of what is a scimitar came up on Discord. The word ''scimitar'' is, as far as we know, a catch-all, vague term used by Europeans for any "oriental" (though in practice just Middle Eastern) curved, single-edged sword, ranging from the Egyptian ''[[khopesh]]'', the Persian ''shamshir'', the Indian ''[[talwar]]'', to the Turkish ''[[kilij]]''. These peoples probably don't have a word in their language which specifically is defined as "a saber of oriental origin" although they may have a word which means ''saber'' in general regardless of origin, even European. I don't know Arabic, Coptic, Turkish, Farsi, or any Indian language, so I am not sure on this. The question stands though: "do scimitars exist?" Well, one might say that yes, because some people today conceptualize scimitars, but isn't that those outside people imposing this concept onto those other peoples? Just as we modern...ers would be imposing our modern conceptualizations onto historical peoples, as others to locals? The objects that the word ''scimitar'' describes ''do'' exist because "oriental" sabers do exist. The catch is that for those "oriental" peoples, they don't have a concept of this being a specific category. They may have a different categorization system. Does this make the concept of ''scimitar'' invalid then? Only if the fact it is ill-defined were to make it invalid, but it is just one particular way that a group of people decided to categorize objects they interact with and study.

	If this example isn't the best because it's cross-culture not so much cross-time, then I will refer back to the debate over whether ''sovereignty'' existed in the past. See, many political scholars assert that ''sovereignty'' is a modern concept which describes the status of a state who is at the highest tier of societal organization: there is no greater authority above this state. At the same time, a sovereign state must have fixed and clearly defined borders, as any state by definition needs, and legitimate sovereign states nowadays must be mostly recognized by other sovereign states and therefore not be subject to invasion on a whim. It is commonly taught by political professors that sovereign states did not exist prior to modern times, and therefore it is anachronistic to describe countries like the Roman Empire, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, the Han dynasty, the Mughal Empire, etc. as sovereign states. The argument goes that people in those days did not have this belief, this concept of an official status of states ~~to not~~ greater authority above them, stipulated by international law, such that all who share that status are equal with one another. ~~States~~ were always subject to being conquered and treated as vassals or tributaries by greater powers. By extension, sovereign states did not exist before modern times.		If this example isn't the best because it's cross-culture not so much cross-time, then I will refer back to the debate over whether ''sovereignty'' existed in the past. See, many political scholars assert that ''sovereignty'' is a modern concept which describes the status of a state who is at the highest tier of societal organization: there is no greater authority above this state. At the same time, a sovereign state must have fixed and clearly defined borders, as any state by definition needs, and legitimate sovereign states nowadays must be mostly recognized by other sovereign states and therefore not be subject to invasion on a whim. It is commonly taught by political professors that sovereign states did not exist prior to modern times, and therefore it is anachronistic to describe countries like the Roman Empire, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, the Han dynasty, the Mughal Empire, etc. as sovereign states. The argument goes that people in those days did not have this belief, this concept of an official status of states with no greater authority above them, stipulated by international law, such that all who share that status are equal with one another. After all, historical states were always subject to being conquered and treated as vassals or tributaries by greater powers. By extension, sovereign states did not exist before modern times.

	I have disagreed with this all my life. I disagree because I think that even if people in ancient times did not have an exact word for ''sovereignty'' (this in and of itself is debatable), there were plenty of states which had defined borders, had no greater authority above them, and recognized one another as equals, e.g. Tang China and Sasanian Persia. I disagree because I also do not think that the distinction between states being subject to arbitrary conquest in pre-modern times and states not being '''''as''''' subject to arbitrary conquest in modern times because of the international recognition of sovereign status is significant. Countries now, as then, ''can'' and have invaded other countries to subjugate them, as we saw in World War II, as we saw in the Indochina Wars, as we saw in the Persian Gulf Wars.		I have disagreed with this all my life. I disagree because I think that even if people in ancient times did not have an exact word for ''sovereignty'' (this in and of itself is debatable), there were plenty of states which had defined borders, had no greater authority above them, and recognized one another as equals, e.g. Tang China and Sasanian Persia. I disagree because I also do not think that the distinction between states being subject to arbitrary conquest in pre-modern times and states not being '''''as''''' subject to arbitrary conquest in modern times because of the international recognition of sovereign status is significant. Countries now, as then, ''can'' and have invaded other countries to subjugate them, as we saw in World War II, as we saw in the Indochina Wars, as we saw in the Persian Gulf Wars.
Line 61:		Line 61:
	The question that I, in the field of political science, has constantly had to contend with is whether ''sovereignty'' can be retrospectively applied to pre-modern countries. If the people then didn't have this exact concept of sovereignty as defined through international consensus, were there sovereign states? Or can it be that there were sovereign states who just didn't think to use the word ''sovereignty'' to define themselves or to promote a category of ''sovereignty'' in international affairs?		The question that I, in the field of political science, has constantly had to contend with is whether ''sovereignty'' can be retrospectively applied to pre-modern countries. If the people then didn't have this exact concept of sovereignty as defined through international consensus, were there sovereign states? Or can it be that there were sovereign states who just didn't think to use the word ''sovereignty'' to define themselves or to promote a category of ''sovereignty'' in international affairs?

	If this seems all off-topic, it is rather an extreme tangent. But it is the same question we run into where Francesco argues that LGBT+ cannot be applied to historical homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender people, etc. If we were to define the LGBT+ as a movement only, then that point may be valid. But if we were to define it as just the trait of being homosexual, bisexual, transgender, etc. then it can be applied retrospectively. The phenomenon or subjects that the modern term describes existed in that era even if they didn't use that word. And of course they would not have, because they did not speak English.		If this seems all off-topic, I admit it is rather an extreme tangent. But it is the same question we run into where Francesco argues that LGBT+ cannot be applied to historical homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender people, etc. If we were to define the LGBT+ as a movement only, then that point may be valid. But if we were to define it as just the trait of being homosexual, bisexual, transgender, etc. then it can be applied retrospectively. The phenomenon or subjects that the modern term describes existed in that era even if they didn't use that word. And of course they would not have, because they did not speak English.

	That is the same issue with people who argue that Greek people prior to the Macedonian Empire would not have seen themselves as Greek and that Greece didn't exist at the time of the Peloponnesian War—as has been argued once before on this wiki. The Greeks didn't use the name ''Greek'' because that is English. They called themselves ''Hellenes'' which is essentially Greek for Greek, and even if they thought their loyalties lay with their city-states not the Greek civilization as one hypothetical nation, this does not mean they had no concept of Greece, as a world of the Greeks. That Greece was conceptualized differently in the past, as a common cultural civilization with many Greek states, rather than as one nation doesn't mean that Greece didn't exist.		That is the same issue with people who argue that Greek people prior to the Macedonian Empire would not have seen themselves as Greek and that Greece didn't exist at the time of the Peloponnesian War—as has been argued once before on this wiki. The Greeks didn't use the name ''Greek'' because that is English. They called themselves ''Hellenes'' which is essentially Greek for Greek, and even if they thought their loyalties lay with their city-states not the Greek civilization as one hypothetical nation, this does not mean they had no concept of Greece, as a world of the Greeks. That Greece was conceptualized differently in the past, as a common cultural civilization with many Greek states, rather than as one nation doesn't mean that Greece didn't exist.

	Applying new or outside terminology to phenomenon when they were known under different names or conceptualized in a different way isn't non-factual. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 21:46, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		Applying new or outside terminology to phenomenon when they were known under different names or conceptualized in a different way isn't non-factual. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 21:46, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Revisiting the category */

2020-06-13T21:46:06Z

Revisiting the category

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 :::::::::In any case, back to semantics, I am not informed enough on this topic to speak on how LGBT+ is defined, so I am inclined to trust Sora and others who are acquainted with LGBT+ movement. [[User:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 20:37, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
 :::::::::I agree that my example on Nuclear War was a bit strong but it proved the point. Did it exist at the time? Yes for homosexuality, not for LGBT in Classical Greece. It's like the discussion if Sokrates was Greek or not in the modern sense. He was a Hellens but before all an Athenian. As I already said, I totally agree with a transgender category as it's a factual description, as being a silversmith, a British, or an Assassin. For me, if the characters or historical figures haven't the conscious to be a part of the LGBT, they aren't. But I follow the Vox Populi on this case for now.[[User:Francesco75|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75|talk]]) 21:01, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
 :::::::::The acknowledgement of identities of individuals of minority groups is not in any way is relevant to the connections their own identities might or might not have to political movements regardless of when/if those movements exist(ed), because ''being'' is only political if made a political controversy. A better comparison is Native American identities and their contemporary movements, what identities they themselves have within the umbrella term Native American is what defines ''what'' they are regardless of what any political movement fights for. Therefor any discussion that conflates political movements with the existence of minority identities isn't as much a debate about identities as it is a semantic debate build on historical assumptions surrounding these identities. And as someone within the community and politically active, I agree with the name change of the category as well.--[[User:ACsenior|ACsenior]] ([[User talk:ACsenior|talk]]) 21:44, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
 So that is Francesco75's vote against the category versus  Sadelyrate, VilkaTheWolf, Odeyssus and my vote for the category and Sol abstains. - [[User:Soranin|Soranin]] ([[User talk:Soranin|talk]]) 17:27, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
 :I don't say I vote against, I want to discuss about the redefinition and have the argument of others. Also you forgot Lacrosse, what a rigged vote (i'm joking).[[User:Francesco75|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75|talk]]) 17:33, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
 == Name change? ==

imported>ACsenior: /* Name change? */

2020-06-13T21:45:50Z

Name change?

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:45, 13 June 2020
Line 55:		Line 55:
	:I agree, but the only problem with that is that one of us have to be willing to do that all in one go. Currently, we don't have a bot that allows us to move all these pages, and we actually have quite a few category pages waiting on manual moves like this. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 20:07, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:I agree, but the only problem with that is that one of us have to be willing to do that all in one go. Currently, we don't have a bot that allows us to move all these pages, and we actually have quite a few category pages waiting on manual moves like this. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 20:07, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	:Not agreed as we haven't decide where was the limit. Did we counted Maxwell Roth just because he kissed one guy without anything further?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 20:13, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:Not agreed as we haven't decide where was the limit. Did we counted Maxwell Roth just because he kissed one guy without anything further?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 20:13, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
			Agreed.--[[User:ACsenior\|ACsenior]] ([[User talk:ACsenior\|talk]]) 21:45, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

imported>ACsenior: /* Revisiting the category */

2020-06-13T21:44:35Z

Revisiting the category

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:44, 13 June 2020
Line 44:		Line 44:
	::::::::::The rhetorical "how do we know that the concept of Nuclear War didn't exist at the time of, say, Peloponnesian War?" used as a comeback was also entirely absurd, and I think it is at that point that the whole discussion was derailed because I believe Sadel's "how do you know the concept of LGBT+ didn't exist then" was intended as an honest question. The concept of nuclear war certainly didn't exist at the time of the Peloponnesian War because that concept depends on the existence of nuclear weapons, which didn't exist then. But homosexuality did exist in those days. The two don't compare at all. You guys really could have navigated this better, but I would be a hypocrite if I didn't acknowledge I've had my fair share of heated debates on the wiki, and I don't think anyone here crossed the line. It's just that one rhetorical question out of left field which really wasn't constructive that bothers me a little.		::::::::::The rhetorical "how do we know that the concept of Nuclear War didn't exist at the time of, say, Peloponnesian War?" used as a comeback was also entirely absurd, and I think it is at that point that the whole discussion was derailed because I believe Sadel's "how do you know the concept of LGBT+ didn't exist then" was intended as an honest question. The concept of nuclear war certainly didn't exist at the time of the Peloponnesian War because that concept depends on the existence of nuclear weapons, which didn't exist then. But homosexuality did exist in those days. The two don't compare at all. You guys really could have navigated this better, but I would be a hypocrite if I didn't acknowledge I've had my fair share of heated debates on the wiki, and I don't think anyone here crossed the line. It's just that one rhetorical question out of left field which really wasn't constructive that bothers me a little.
	:::::::::In any case, back to semantics, I am not informed enough on this topic to speak on how LGBT+ is defined, so I am inclined to trust Sora and others who are acquainted with LGBT+ movement. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 20:37, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:::::::::In any case, back to semantics, I am not informed enough on this topic to speak on how LGBT+ is defined, so I am inclined to trust Sora and others who are acquainted with LGBT+ movement. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 20:37, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::I agree that my example on Nuclear War was a bit strong but it proved the point. Did it exist at the time? Yes for homosexuality, not for LGBT in Classical Greece. It's like the discussion if Sokrates was Greek or not in the modern sense. He was a Hellens but before all an Athenian. As I already said, I totally agree with a transgender category as it's a factual description, as being a silversmith, a British, or an Assassin. For me, if the characters or historical figures haven't the conscious to be a part of the LGBT, they aren't. But I follow the Vox Populi on this case for now.[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 21:01, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:::::::::I agree that my example on Nuclear War was a bit strong but it proved the point. Did it exist at the time? Yes for homosexuality, not for LGBT in Classical Greece. It's like the discussion if Sokrates was Greek or not in the modern sense. He was a Hellens but before all an Athenian. As I already said, I totally agree with a transgender category as it's a factual description, as being a silversmith, a British, or an Assassin. For me, if the characters or historical figures haven't the conscious to be a part of the LGBT, they aren't. But I follow the Vox Populi on this case for now.[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 21:01, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
			:::::::::The acknowledgement of identities of individuals of minority groups is not in any way is relevant to the connections their own identities might or might not have to political movements regardless of when/if those movements exist(ed), because ''being'' is only political if made a political controversy. A better comparison is Native American identities and their contemporary movements, what identities they themselves have within the umbrella term Native American is what defines ''what'' they are regardless of what any political movement fights for. Therefor any discussion that conflates political movements with the existence of minority identities isn't as much a debate about identities as it is a semantic debate build on historical assumptions surrounding these identities. And as someone within the community and politically active, I agree with the name change of the category as well.--[[User:ACsenior\|ACsenior]] ([[User talk:ACsenior\|talk]]) 21:44, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	So that is Francesco75's vote against the category versus Sadelyrate, VilkaTheWolf, Odeyssus and my vote for the category and Sol abstains. - [[User:Soranin\|Soranin]] ([[User talk:Soranin\|talk]]) 17:27, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		So that is Francesco75's vote against the category versus Sadelyrate, VilkaTheWolf, Odeyssus and my vote for the category and Sol abstains. - [[User:Soranin\|Soranin]] ([[User talk:Soranin\|talk]]) 17:27, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	:I don't say I vote against, I want to discuss about the redefinition and have the argument of others. Also you forgot Lacrosse, what a rigged vote (i'm joking).[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 17:33, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:I don't say I vote against, I want to discuss about the redefinition and have the argument of others. Also you forgot Lacrosse, what a rigged vote (i'm joking).[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 17:33, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:23, 14 June 2020
Line 75:		Line 75:
	Agreed.--[[User:ACsenior\|ACsenior]] ([[User talk:ACsenior\|talk]]) 21:45, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		Agreed.--[[User:ACsenior\|ACsenior]] ([[User talk:ACsenior\|talk]]) 21:45, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	:I'll just say keep it where it is. Less hassle, also whats the plus? Queer and intersex are among them, which to my knowledge no AC characters are. There are Lesbian, Gay, Bi, and Trans characters however. So, thats my vote. Keep as "LGBT individuals."[[User:VilkaTheWolf\|<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 1px; color:white;"><span style="font-family: Impact"><span style="color: green">V </span><span style="color: gold">i </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">k </span><span style="color: green">a </span><span style="color: gold">T </span><span style="color: green">h </span><span style="color: gold">e </span><span style="color: green">W </span><span style="color: gold">o </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">f </span></span></span>]] ([[User talk:Boofhead185\|talk]]) 03:38, June 14, 2020 (UTC)		:I'll just say keep it where it is. Less hassle, also whats the plus? Queer and intersex are among them, which to my knowledge no AC characters are. There are Lesbian, Gay, Bi, and Trans characters however. So, thats my vote. Keep as "LGBT individuals."[[User:VilkaTheWolf\|<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 1px; color:white;"><span style="font-family: Impact"><span style="color: green">V </span><span style="color: gold">i </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">k </span><span style="color: green">a </span><span style="color: gold">T </span><span style="color: green">h </span><span style="color: gold">e </span><span style="color: green">W </span><span style="color: gold">o </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">f </span></span></span>]] ([[User talk:Boofhead185\|talk]]) 03:38, June 14, 2020 (UTC)
			::In the essence of equal representation I've skimmed through some umbrella terms such as MSGI, GSM/SGM, GSRM, GSD, MOGII, and MOGAI because there could be an argument that while LGBT+ is more inclusive to those that fall outside the umbrella of just LGBT such as intersex or asexual it could still be seen as marginalizing them as they don't get their own initial in the anagram. However those other umbrella terms while being more inclusive without using specific labels do not see wide usage and would most likely confuse readers but I still bring them to the discussion as possible options. As an aside we technically do have intersex mythology figures mentioned without being explicitly stated such as Hapi. Phanes would be another but as an Isu I am uncertain of how to go about that unless explicitly stated which it isn't. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 04:23, June 14, 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:38, 14 June 2020
Line 74:		Line 74:
	:Not agreed as we haven't decide where was the limit. Did we counted Maxwell Roth just because he kissed one guy without anything further?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 20:13, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:Not agreed as we haven't decide where was the limit. Did we counted Maxwell Roth just because he kissed one guy without anything further?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 20:13, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	Agreed.--[[User:ACsenior\|ACsenior]] ([[User talk:ACsenior\|talk]]) 21:45, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		Agreed.--[[User:ACsenior\|ACsenior]] ([[User talk:ACsenior\|talk]]) 21:45, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
			:I'll just say keep it where it is. Less hassle, also whats the plus? Queer and intersex are among them, which to my knowledge no AC characters are. There are Lesbian, Gay, Bi, and Trans characters however. So, thats my vote. Keep as "LGBT individuals."[[User:VilkaTheWolf\|<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 1px; color:white;"><span style="font-family: Impact"><span style="color: green">V </span><span style="color: gold">i </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">k </span><span style="color: green">a </span><span style="color: gold">T </span><span style="color: green">h </span><span style="color: gold">e </span><span style="color: green">W </span><span style="color: gold">o </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">f </span></span></span>]] ([[User talk:Boofhead185\|talk]]) 03:38, June 14, 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:45, 13 June 2020
Line 55:		Line 55:
	:I agree, but the only problem with that is that one of us have to be willing to do that all in one go. Currently, we don't have a bot that allows us to move all these pages, and we actually have quite a few category pages waiting on manual moves like this. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 20:07, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:I agree, but the only problem with that is that one of us have to be willing to do that all in one go. Currently, we don't have a bot that allows us to move all these pages, and we actually have quite a few category pages waiting on manual moves like this. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 20:07, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	:Not agreed as we haven't decide where was the limit. Did we counted Maxwell Roth just because he kissed one guy without anything further?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 20:13, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:Not agreed as we haven't decide where was the limit. Did we counted Maxwell Roth just because he kissed one guy without anything further?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 20:13, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
			Agreed.--[[User:ACsenior\|ACsenior]] ([[User talk:ACsenior\|talk]]) 21:45, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:00, 10 May 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	As showcased by '''Andrewh7''' and '''XOdeyssusx'''{{'}}s edits on various ''[[Assassin's Creed: Odyssey\|Odyssey]]'' individuals, this category needs to be at least discussed in a more suitable environment, if for nothing else than to lay down the 'rules' regarding this. This was further prompted by seeing '''Francesco75'''{{'}}s reaction of Odey's [[User talk:XOdeyssusx#LGBT individuals\|talkpage]]. To quote the last: ''"-personally I think we need to rethink the LGBT category, as for me this concept is too contemporary, and have a political aspect. As an example, Leonardo was gay but I don't think he militated for the rights of gays in the Italian Renaissance."''		As showcased by '''Andrewh7''' and '''XOdeyssusx'''{{'}}s edits on various ''[[Assassin's Creed: Odyssey\|Odyssey]]'' individuals, this category needs to be at least discussed in a more suitable environment, if for nothing else than to lay down the 'rules' regarding this. This was further prompted by seeing '''Francesco75'''{{'}}s reaction of Odey's [[User talk:XOdeyssusx#LGBT individuals\|talkpage]]. To quote the last: ''"-personally I think we need to rethink the LGBT category, as for me this concept is too contemporary, and have a political aspect. As an example, Leonardo was gay but I don't think he militated for the rights of gays in the Italian Renaissance."''

	As far as I'm concerned, this category is needed and appropriate. The individuals its applied to can be discussed, but they've been around since the beginning of, well, since there's been sex and gender. In [[Greek mythology]], we've got the story of {{Wiki\|Caeneus}}, which might be argued to be among the first written transgender descriptions. (Fyi: he appears in ''Odyssey'', in a mural) Though the term LGBT+ is relatively modern, its 'practice' is far from it. Though the term is considered 'political', the people it describes aren't. As Francesco75 said... Leonardo wasn't parading for rights for 'his kind'. But he was gay, and our article on him should reflect that, in categories as well, as much as the fact that he was an artist, an inventor, a polymath, and so forth. (It's a pity I was on a break when this was debated back in 2016.) [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[~~w:c:assassinscreed:~~User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 12:44, June 12, 2020 (UTC)		As far as I'm concerned, this category is needed and appropriate. The individuals its applied to can be discussed, but they've been around since the beginning of, well, since there's been sex and gender. In [[Greek mythology]], we've got the story of {{Wiki\|Caeneus}}, which might be argued to be among the first written transgender descriptions. (Fyi: he appears in ''Odyssey'', in a mural) Though the term LGBT+ is relatively modern, its 'practice' is far from it. Though the term is considered 'political', the people it describes aren't. As Francesco75 said... Leonardo wasn't parading for rights for 'his kind'. But he was gay, and our article on him should reflect that, in categories as well, as much as the fact that he was an artist, an inventor, a polymath, and so forth. (It's a pity I was on a break when this was debated back in 2016.) [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 12:44, June 12, 2020 (UTC)
	:You dont have to fight for LGBT rights to be LGBT...the category should stay. Regarding the story of Caeneus, he might be trans. Pretty speculative imo. Individuals who are blatantly gay/bi like Leonardo or Alkibiades are definitely less speculative cases.[[User:VilkaTheWolf\|<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 1px; color:white;"><span style="font-family: Impact"><span style="color: green">V </span><span style="color: gold">i </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">k </span><span style="color: green">a </span><span style="color: gold">T </span><span style="color: green">h </span><span style="color: gold">e </span><span style="color: green">W </span><span style="color: gold">o </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">f </span></span></span>]] ([[User talk:Boofhead185\|talk]]) 12:49, June 12, 2020 (UTC)		:You dont have to fight for LGBT rights to be LGBT...the category should stay. Regarding the story of Caeneus, he might be trans. Pretty speculative imo. Individuals who are blatantly gay/bi like Leonardo or Alkibiades are definitely less speculative cases.[[User:VilkaTheWolf\|<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 1px; color:white;"><span style="font-family: Impact"><span style="color: green">V </span><span style="color: gold">i </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">k </span><span style="color: green">a </span><span style="color: gold">T </span><span style="color: green">h </span><span style="color: gold">e </span><span style="color: green">W </span><span style="color: gold">o </span><span style="color: green">l </span><span style="color: gold">f </span></span></span>]] ([[User talk:Boofhead185\|talk]]) 12:49, June 12, 2020 (UTC)
	::Just addressing the male characters that can be romanced as Alexios that Andrewh7 brought up, I think the way to go about them is to not categorize them in this page but in a BtS section on each of their pages note that they are still romance-able with the male protagonist but whether this sexuality is canon is unknown. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 13:10, June 12, 2020 (UTC)		::Just addressing the male characters that can be romanced as Alexios that Andrewh7 brought up, I think the way to go about them is to not categorize them in this page but in a BtS section on each of their pages note that they are still romance-able with the male protagonist but whether this sexuality is canon is unknown. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 13:10, June 12, 2020 (UTC)
Line 31:		Line 31:
	Mate, LGBT+ is literally an umbrella term. If you're gay, you're LGBT+. If you're trans, you're LGBT+. By definition. Also, that is not the definition of queer, heteronormativity doesn't go into it. Queer aggregates everyone not cis and heterosexual. If someone is cis and not straight, LGBT+. If someone is trans and straight, LGBT+. If someone is cis and straight, '''NOT '''LGBT+. Simple as that. The "feelings/tolerance" of when/where they lived doesn't factor into it at all. - [[User:Soranin\|Soranin]] ([[User talk:Soranin\|talk]]) 14:10, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		Mate, LGBT+ is literally an umbrella term. If you're gay, you're LGBT+. If you're trans, you're LGBT+. By definition. Also, that is not the definition of queer, heteronormativity doesn't go into it. Queer aggregates everyone not cis and heterosexual. If someone is cis and not straight, LGBT+. If someone is trans and straight, LGBT+. If someone is cis and straight, '''NOT '''LGBT+. Simple as that. The "feelings/tolerance" of when/where they lived doesn't factor into it at all. - [[User:Soranin\|Soranin]] ([[User talk:Soranin\|talk]]) 14:10, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	::As barbaric was an umbrella term for not Greek. Define a group by what it isn't don't make a clear definition. As a historian, I considered that attributing to a historical figure concept that doesn't exist at the time as pure revisionism. It's like saying Hilter was for the vegan movement because he had a vegan diet. For me, LGBT had a cultural and political meaning, its own flag, music, districts and even its own state in Coral Sea Islands between 2004 and 2017. As the queer nationalism exist since the 70's, LGBT it more cultural and political identity.[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 16:43, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		::As barbaric was an umbrella term for not Greek. Define a group by what it isn't don't make a clear definition. As a historian, I considered that attributing to a historical figure concept that doesn't exist at the time as pure revisionism. It's like saying Hilter was for the vegan movement because he had a vegan diet. For me, LGBT had a cultural and political meaning, its own flag, music, districts and even its own state in Coral Sea Islands between 2004 and 2017. As the queer nationalism exist since the 70's, LGBT it more cultural and political identity.[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 16:43, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	:::How do you know the concept of LGBT+ didn't exist at the time of, say, Peloponnesian War? [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[~~w:c:assassinscreed:~~User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 16:50, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:::How do you know the concept of LGBT+ didn't exist at the time of, say, Peloponnesian War? [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 16:50, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	::::And how do who know that the concept of Nuclear War didn't exist at the time of, say, Peloponnesian War?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 16:53, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		::::And how do who know that the concept of Nuclear War didn't exist at the time of, say, Peloponnesian War?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 16:53, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	:::::Now you're just dodging the question. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[~~w:c:assassinscreed:~~User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 16:56, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:::::Now you're just dodging the question. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 16:56, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	::::::You too. But let say that I have a degree in History, and that even in the 70's, the T wasn't in the LGBT, it was only LGB.[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 17:00, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		::::::You too. But let say that I have a degree in History, and that even in the 70's, the T wasn't in the LGBT, it was only LGB.[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 17:00, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	::::::: Let's also say that both trans and non-straight research was already being done by 1919, e. g. The Weimar Institute of Sex Research. Don't try and separate the letters, it's not a good look. - [[User:Soranin\|Soranin]] ([[User talk:Soranin\|talk]]) 17:04, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		::::::: Let's also say that both trans and non-straight research was already being done by 1919, e. g. The Weimar Institute of Sex Research. Don't try and separate the letters, it's not a good look. - [[User:Soranin\|Soranin]] ([[User talk:Soranin\|talk]]) 17:04, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::I don't say that research doesn't exist, I say that the revendication of being part of LGBT doesn't exist before it's official creation. Before Marx made the Capital, do you think the workers revendicated being from the proletariat and just were the proletariat? Marx was he a Marxist? Jesus was he a Christian? Taylor was he a Taylorist?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 17:19, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		::::::::I don't say that research doesn't exist, I say that the revendication of being part of LGBT doesn't exist before it's official creation. Before Marx made the Capital, do you think the workers revendicated being from the proletariat and just were the proletariat? Marx was he a Marxist? Jesus was he a Christian? Taylor was he a Taylorist?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 17:19, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::Refusing to help another build a straw man isn't avoidance. But back to the topic. In the 70's... as the, as you say, ''political movement''. Newsflash: language evolves as needed. Words are born and then die as needed. Doesn't mean that the concept's new. Otherwise... no virii before the term 'virus' was coined. No 'autism' before 1908. But as far the ''concept'' of LGBT+... go read your books again. It keeps on popping up throughout human history, in all the languages, in all the cultures. Whether ''Two-Spirit'', or ''māhū'', or poikatyttö... or even 'confirmed bachelor'. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[~~w:c:assassinscreed:~~User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 17:09, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:::::::Refusing to help another build a straw man isn't avoidance. But back to the topic. In the 70's... as the, as you say, ''political movement''. Newsflash: language evolves as needed. Words are born and then die as needed. Doesn't mean that the concept's new. Otherwise... no virii before the term 'virus' was coined. No 'autism' before 1908. But as far the ''concept'' of LGBT+... go read your books again. It keeps on popping up throughout human history, in all the languages, in all the cultures. Whether ''Two-Spirit'', or ''māhū'', or poikatyttö... or even 'confirmed bachelor'. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 17:09, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::Sorry if you don't like reduction to absurdity. You compare scientific phenomena and cultural phenomena, it isn't the same thing. And stay polite, I could that who need to make history studies before saying something but I'm polite and I let you speak.[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 17:19, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:::::::Sorry if you don't like reduction to absurdity. You compare scientific phenomena and cultural phenomena, it isn't the same thing. And stay polite, I could that who need to make history studies before saying something but I'm polite and I let you speak.[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 17:19, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::You simplify others' identity as a mere relatively modern politico-cultural thing, and then accuse of impoliteness when your opinion that the ''concept'' of it is 'new' is challenged? O.o [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[~~w:c:assassinscreed:~~User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 18:44, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		::::::::You simplify others' identity as a mere relatively modern politico-cultural thing, and then accuse of impoliteness when your opinion that the ''concept'' of it is 'new' is challenged? O.o [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 18:44, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::I not simplify, I said that LGBT have more weight as a cultural concept than just a sexual preference, but I don't accuse you to be uneducated because you don't agree with me. Be polite, assume good faith, do not insult other people. For a moderator, I think you know the rules better.[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 19:53, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:::::::::I not simplify, I said that LGBT have more weight as a cultural concept than just a sexual preference, but I don't accuse you to be uneducated because you don't agree with me. Be polite, assume good faith, do not insult other people. For a moderator, I think you know the rules better.[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 19:53, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::Francesco, the contention you and the others seem to have is that whereas you hold that LGBT+ is defined as a movement or community, the others are telling you that it is defined by the trait of being homosexual, bisexual, transgender, etc. It is that simple. They think that if an individual was homosexual in ancient Greece, then they are LGBT+ because that is how they say it is defined. It is not because they think that they should impose the identity of a contemporary gay rights movement onto ancient peoples who may or may not have had a sense of solidarity with or been an activist with this movement. You guys were merely arguing semantics, not the philosophy of historical relativism, and frankly, I'm disappointed at this failure to recognize that the matter being debated was so simple.		::::::::::Francesco, the contention you and the others seem to have is that whereas you hold that LGBT+ is defined as a movement or community, the others are telling you that it is defined by the trait of being homosexual, bisexual, transgender, etc. It is that simple. They think that if an individual was homosexual in ancient Greece, then they are LGBT+ because that is how they say it is defined. It is not because they think that they should impose the identity of a contemporary gay rights movement onto ancient peoples who may or may not have had a sense of solidarity with or been an activist with this movement. You guys were merely arguing semantics, not the philosophy of historical relativism, and frankly, I'm disappointed at this failure to recognize that the matter being debated was so simple.
Line 70:		Line 70:

	Could we vote on whether we as a wiki should rename this category from "LGBT individuals" to "LGBT+ individuals"? I vote for the change. - [[User:Soranin\|Soranin]] ([[User talk:Soranin\|talk]]) 17:32, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		Could we vote on whether we as a wiki should rename this category from "LGBT individuals" to "LGBT+ individuals"? I vote for the change. - [[User:Soranin\|Soranin]] ([[User talk:Soranin\|talk]]) 17:32, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	:Agreed. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[~~w:c:assassinscreed:~~User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 18:45, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:Agreed. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 18:45, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	:I agree, but the only problem with that is that one of us have to be willing to do that all in one go. Currently, we don't have a bot that allows us to move all these pages, and we actually have quite a few category pages waiting on manual moves like this. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 20:07, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:I agree, but the only problem with that is that one of us have to be willing to do that all in one go. Currently, we don't have a bot that allows us to move all these pages, and we actually have quite a few category pages waiting on manual moves like this. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 20:07, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
	:Not agreed as we haven't decide where was the limit. Did we counted Maxwell Roth just because he kissed one guy without anything further?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 20:13, June 13, 2020 (UTC)		:Not agreed as we haven't decide where was the limit. Did we counted Maxwell Roth just because he kissed one guy without anything further?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 20:13, June 13, 2020 (UTC)