Jump to content

Talk:Drag queen/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Movies

You forgot the biggest drag film Rocky Horror Picture Show —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.232.122 (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Rocky showcases transvestitism and I don't explicitly recall any drag queens in it, but it has been a while since I saw the movie. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Rocky has absolutely nothing to do with drag. I'll remove it. Metalion SOS (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Drag Family

Drag queens often have drag mothers and drag daughters, and "chosen families" that share the same last name. This should be mentioned. JanetWand (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Drag Mother

I think there should be a section talking about drag mother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viettdinh (talk • contribs) 04:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Art of Doing Drag

Hi everyone. I'm in the process of editing this page to include a new section on The art of doing drag. These are a few of the resources I've located that I am finding to be useful. If anyone else has suggestions or feedback, do let me know. I hope to have my new content posted in the next couple weeks. Wikipedia Annotated Bibliography


Verta Taylor, Leila J. Rupp, Joshua Gamson, Performing Protest: Drag Shows As Tactical Repertoire of the Gay and Lesbian Movement. (2004) (pages 105-137) In this article, the author talks about how she thinks that people who perform drag is a salient way to reify aspects of gay masculinity and that are otherwise rejected by the hegemonic gender order.

Dana Berkowitz, Linda Liska Belgrave, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. (2010) She Works Hard for the Money: Drag Queen and the Management of their Contradictory Status of Celebrity and Marginality. In this ethnography, the authors talked about how drag queens enable gay men to emphasize and manipulate aspects of femininity for the means of getting more attention and making an income as well as garnering situational power.

Brent Hartinger, (July 2010). Has the Gay Community Finally Come To Terms with Drag Queens? The backlot.com This article talks about how the some gay community is not into the drag scene and how drag queens are taking criticism from the gay community. There are talks about how some may hate, love, respect or even feel threaten by drag queens.

Christina Molina, (May 2013). Beauty Chat: Jinkx Monsoon on the Art of Drag. This short article talks about Jinkx Monsoon, the latest winner of Rupaul’s Drag Race explaining what does drag mean to her, and the art of her drag and the art behind doing drag.

Tom Bartolomei, (April 2013) 10 Myths About Drag Queens. www.huffingtonpost.com The author give his 10 myths about drag queens, there are things are most people know and there are things that are interesting to know and learn about drag queens.


Kim Roller, (October 2002) Dude to Diva: How to Become a Drag Queen. This article talks about the steps of becoming a drag queen, what is needed in the transition of transforming into a drag queen. It also talks about the art of doing drag.

John Jocab, Catherine Cemy (2004) Radical Drag Appearances And Identity: The Embodiment of Male Femininity and Social Critique. Pages 122-134 The article talks about a study investigated some of the connections between social experience, appearance and identity that occurred with gay men. The investigation also indicated that social experiences stemming from male effeminacy and being gay were fundamental identity components leading to radical drag queen appearances.

Mark King, (August 2011) A working Life: the Drag Queen This article talks about Richard also known as Cookie MonStar when in drag, the fulltime drag queen talks about how her life as Cookie, and the history how she started doing drag and why she did it.

Joy Martin-Malone (September 2013) Why Drag Queens are Better Role Models than Disney Princesses. The author compared drag queens to Disney princesses and explained her reasoning why drag queens are better role models.

Alexandria Fisher, (August 2012) The Art of Being a Drag Queen. The author talks about the art of doing drag, performing drag, She talks about every single little details about drag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viettdinh (talk • contribs) 07:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Art of Doing Drag

Each person have their own reasoning as to why they do drag, some do it to impersonate other females, some do it for money, some do it for entertaining and there are some that do it simply because they like to dress up. Whichever way it is, Drag queens go through many different steps in transforming themselves, the art of doing drag varies from different drag queens. Drag queens are often an exaggeration of a female that means everything has to be more extreme. The main thing every drag queen has to have is make-up; make-up can transform someone’s look completely, whether they’re going for a more pageant look or a gory-gothic look. After the make-up comes the outfit, drag queens often wear more of dramatic outfits, lots of sparkles and gems, just like their makeup each outfit will go with their theme. The Hair is the part that ties the whole look together, since drag queens are male, the often wear wigs. The normal rate for a drag queen to get ready varies from an hour to three, or four hours. When dressing in drag in public, drag queens often gets looks from everyone, some positive ones and some negative ones. My plan is to talk write section on about how drag queens get ready, as well as a day in the life of a drag queen, I will be talking about different steps, based on some of the articles I found as well as my own experience doing drag. I believe that this new section will help readers, and viewers get an insight of what drag queens have to go through to get ready, as well as tips for new drag queens. My final section will be more detailed, in every single things, I will also add stories i found and use my sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viettdinh (talk • contribs) 07:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit for viettdinh

Hi Viettdinh, This is a great article and will be very helpful to a lot of readers. The only things I see that may need to be changed are a few grammar mistakes. Also, it seems that you go from plural to singular often in your sentences. For instance, in one sentence you wrote, "Since drag queen are men..." Men is plural and drag queen is singular, if you just add an S to the end of drag queen then they would both be plural and it would cause less confusion. Also, the sentences seem to be a bit wordy, try reading through it and eliminating any unnecessary words that sound redundant. Finally, I can see that you tried to add a youtube link as a reference, and the reference markers are visible on the page. It may be easier to cite the video using an MLA or APA format and then add the footnote reference so that users can just go to the reference tab at the bottom of the article and click on the youtube reference instead. I think you may have tried to just add the youtube link into the reference markers. The article is interesting, good work!

Nrudisill (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The initial information appears to be redundant and could benefit from modifying it into more concise language. It may help to by using other definitions to debunk preconceived notions, e.g. merriam-webster dictionary defines the male as homosexual (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drag%20queen), which is not a blanket truth. The article may also benefit from scholarly article information and citations. CNoemiM (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.examiner.com/a-645293~Lypsinka_dearest_syncs_into_Joan.html
    Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Origin of 'Drag'

The article states:

A folk etymology, whose acronym basis reveals the late 20th-century bias, would make "drag" an abbreviation of "Dressed as A Girl" in description of male theatrical transvestism. However, there is no trace of this supposed stage direction in Dessen and Thomson's Dictionary of Stage Directions in English Drama, 1580-1642.

Can someone please explain how the bold part has anything to do with the part before? The claim is that the term originated as an acronym in the 20th century, so how on earth would the fact that it wasn't mentioned in a book from the 16th century contradict that claim? And what does the term have to do with stage *directions* anyway?

I'm going to delete the bold part unless someone can explain its relevance. Dawei20 (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Original research

Although there are several dozen references and that's good, there are still entire unreferenced sections, as well as large blocks of text that are unreferenced. It's clear that a lot of this stuff comes from personal experience of people who are probably editing in good faith and just wanting to improve the article, but Wikipedia requires citations by reliable sources for all material, and unsourced material is liable to be challenged and removed. Mathglot (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

When locating sources, watch out for Wikipedia mirrors, and even for printed books like Steven Glassman, 2009,[1] which quote Wikipedia and are thus invalid, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Steve Glassman (2009). Florida in the Popular Imagination: Essays on the Cultural Landscape of the Sunshine State. McFarland & Company. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-7864-3964-5. Retrieved 29 April 2017. As Wikipedia, the wildly popular and unpredictable online encyclopedia of our time, asserts, 'The term drag queen originates in Polari, a subset of English slang that was popular in some gay communities in the early part of the twentieth century. Drag meant 'clothes' and was also theatre slang for a woman's costume worn by a male actor. Queen refers to the trait of affected royalty found in many drag characters.' 

Relevance of some history material to this article

@Haileybuck: There is some material in the new #History section of the article that is of questionable relevance here, and should probably be moved to other articles.

The #Castrati section doesn't say anything about cross-dressing so fails to make it clear how this is relevant to any kind of cross-gendered behavior. Even if it did, it's not clear how this would belong in an article about Drag queens anyway, rather than in another one, such as the one about Cross-dressing perhaps.

The section on Shakespeare is of questionable relevance to this article. Boys playing girls' roles in Shakespeare are not considered drag queens. In addition, most of the material duplicates information already present in History of cross-dressing, and should probably be merged into that article.

The sections on minstrelsy and vaudeville are somewhat less clear cut, but as drag queens are a gay culture phenomenon, and afaik there was no connection between minstrelsy and vaudeville on the one hand, and gay culture on the other, but I could be mistaken; in any case, reliable sources would be required here, to justify the inclusion of these sections in an article on drag queens. Mathglot (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The article lacks a proper definition in the first sentence. It isn't always clear what counts as "drag queen" and what is cross-dressing of another sort. I would certainly not count Mrs. Doubtfire or Victor/Victoria as "drag queens" for example, nor vaudeville shows or minstrelsy.

The current definition, while not wrong as far as it goes, is circular at the outset: "A drag queen is a person, usually male, who dresses in drag ..." but that doesn't tell you what drag actually is. ("Drag" is linked to Drag (clothing), albeit a piped version of it, which somewhat mitigates this, but the first sentence is not the place to be circular like this; the definition should be transparent and unequivocal.) The second half of the sentence does a better job, but it should be recast to clearly define the term. Secondly, even though there is a #Terminology section in the body of the article where one might expect to find a detailed definition of it, there isn't one. Since the lead paragraphs are supposed to summarize the rest of the article, details of the definition should go to #Terminology, with a basic definition in the first sentence.

Finally, I draw a distinction in meaning between the prepositional phrase in drag (or drag as adjective, as in "drag performance") which have rather broad scope on the one hand, and "drag queen" on the other, which is a noun phrase with more limited scope. For example, in drag could describe Bob Hope in some of his performances, or SNL's Dana Carvey or Melissa McCarthy as the Church Lady or Sean Spicer, respectively. The term drag queen on the other hand, would include Divine or RuPaul, but not Carvey or McCarthy, even though all four are "in drag" in their performances. This distinction should be clarified in the #Terminology section as well. There is already an article Drag (clothing) which covers the expression "in drag" fairly well, so we could link to it as part of the explanation of "in drag". Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Drag queen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Replaced with an earlier link from web archive, as this one was a soft 404. Mathglot (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drag queen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Two links checked. Mathglot (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agarza158.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced "Type" section

There is a poorly defined Type section, which purports to define "types" of drag queens, such as Low camp, elegance, pageants, terrorist drag, charitable activities. This section was originally called "Genres" (a better name) before it was changed to "types". This is all original research and unsourced. As this section has existed at least since 2003, fourteen years with no references is about enough. This needs to be sourced, or it will be deleted. Mathglot (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This is long enough. Blanked the section, including five references, which don't support the "types" distinction. They may, however, be good for some other purpose in the article, so here they are:
If anyone wants to create a "types" section, that's fine, but please read WP:OR first, and understand WP:CITE. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for personal reflection, so content must be referenced by reliable sources. Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Drag queen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello 76.98.184.25 (talk · contribs), and thanks for your contributions to the article.

There is no need to do large-scale copying of material from other articles into the Drag queen article as you did here, here, and here. Copying content like this is unnecessary, is likely to get out of sync, and muddies the waters at the Drag queen article, since those additions don't concern the main topic of the article. You could end up copying the same content over and over and over again into dozens of articles listed in the transgender sidebar, but that wouldn't be an improvement, they'd all just end up being bloated articles with similar content and different titles.

That's not the way to approach this material here in the drag queen article. The way to do this properly, is to summarize sections from other articles in a sentence or two, and use the {{main}} template to show where to go for more detail about this topic. If you need examples or assistance in how to do this, please ask. I'll give you some time to make these changes yourself, but if there's not been any movement after a few days, I plan to undo your changes of August 2, and then I will add a couple of sentences summarizing the material and add some {{Main}} templates to point to them. But I'll give you first crack at this, in case you would like to take that on. If you wish to do so, I would recommend reinstalling version 792537623 of 03:22, 27 July, and going forward from there. If you need help with that, please ask. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It should be ok now, please see what you think.76.98.184.25 (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@76.98.184.25: Much better, bravo. This is an improvement to the article, thanks for working on this. Mathglot (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drag queen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In Film

The list of examples in film includes 1982's Victor/Victoria, but not the 1933 film upon which it is based (Victor and Victoria) - which includes scenes with a very recognisable drag queen style. However, the list identifies a 1937 Polish film as the first drag queen style movie, so I'm wary of just adding Victor and Victoria - is there a reason it isn't already included, or a reason for identifying the 1937 film as the first drag queen movie other than that it's the earliest currently in this list?--51.9.240.6 (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drag queen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Logan Carter deleted

Should we remove images and other references to Logan Carter/Roxanne Russell? Is there undue weight being given to images and mentions of someone who is not considered notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia? Surely there are any number of notable people with images that could be used for the article, likewise someone else to mention in the Drag queen names section. Mathglot (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking of removing the Logan Carter image at the top of the page, and adding an image of Divine, or Dame Edna, both of whom are well-known, quintessential drag queens, and have appeared in film, stage and television. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Request for use made at Mediawiki talk:Bad image list#Request: use Divine image at Drag queen. Mathglot (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done – Replaced with Dame Edna. Mathglot (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Misunderstanding re: image caption

There seems to be a misunderstanding which may have led to this change to an image caption. No living persons are mentioned. The image's description at Commons clarifies that. This image was added to the section about drag queen names only because the photo shows such names in a (fictitious) ad. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Even if the ad is fictious it looks like an ad, but the mentioning of "wild side story" there seems to be odd. Therefor I deleted that. Maybe it was that part that made it look like "real person drag names"? But the names are very hard to see and therefor it does not look like the picture is about that. Is it neccecary to have that picture there if the purpose is the names (how do you know that Consuelo is a drag queen it is written on the next page?, same with the other name, which is hard to get to obviula.) Adville (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't really see a problem with leaving Wild side story in the caption as it was a show that had a large part of drag in it and the 2 men in drag are characters from the play and so long as it has its page on WP it does have a clear link to the subject. That said if it is not a real ad for drag queens I am not sure that it illustrates the subject, it is just man looking at a piece of paper that has the words drag queen on it and has a couple of people that may or may not be drag queens. It would have been interesting if it had really been an ad looking for drag queens. Now we know it is a fictitious ad it loses a lot of its interest. The photo is taken from behind and is not recognisable so there is no need to mention the person's name unless he is notable and linked to the subject. Domdeparis (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Purpose of Entertaining

The first sentence states that drag is often for the purpose of entertaining. Shouldn't the article mention what percent of men dress in drag or crossdress outside "the purpose of entertaining". I'm not referring to transvestic fetishism or sexual crossdressing, just gay/bisexual men who dress as women outside of performing. Voss91 (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


How can the article better present the properties of drag as a performance art, while also accurately presenting the more subject art forms of crossdressing or drag king performance? The article specifically discusses the Drag queen yet tends to disregard that each layer has its own history, traditions, and characteristics by grouping drag as one concept. What sources, terms, and other information can the article incorporate to improve this? Jelcohen (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Other languages

I don't know too many other languages, but when I click on the 'Bahasa Indonesia' and 'Basa Jawa' pages, I can see that these are not the equivalent of the English term 'Drag Queen.'

There is plenty of information on waria to make it clear that they are third gender people.

As for wandu, the article "Female transgender: Gender & sexual identities among transgender female to male persons in Jakarta" states "Historical texts of the 1800s and 1900s note that the Javanese women who dressed and acted like men in their childhood were called wandu; the term also used for identifying male transgender persons."

Thus, why are waria and wandu cross-linked to drag queen when they are not drag queens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlakeALee (talk • contribs) 22:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: Do you concur in BlakeALee's analysis re id:waria and jv:wandu ? If so, it's likely a wikidata problem with d:Q337084. Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks like those entries were created by MerlIwBot and if those two entries are wrong, others may be wrong as well. Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from their revision histories, the id and jv entries were initially linked to Sissy for several years. After a few months of being unlinked, they got linked to here. While the bot indeed created most of the interwiki relations, id and jv were linked later on by an individual editor.
As to wether "drag queen" is an appropriate target for "waria": most definitely not. The id and jv entries are more about men behaving/being like women in general (transgender? transsexual? forgive me my ignorance in the correct terminology here) and not about exagerated trans behaviour. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda and BlakeALee: Thanks, I've updated d:Q337084. Mathglot (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Great, thanks. I'm now confused why d:Q50413997 looks good, but the actual jv:wandu page still links to de:Sissy? BlakeALee (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, HyperGaruda. BlakeALee, that's because the code of the page has de-wiki manually coded as an interwiki at the bottom of the page; this overrides the content of wikidata for that value. If you believe it is wrong, you can just remove it. Btw, the entry for d:Q50413997 is completely blank when I view it, *except* for links to for those two articles at jv and id wikipedias. I'm a little unclear if Q50413997 serves any purpose at all, now. I've asked for feedback, and linked this discussion from Wikidata's talk page. Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The Transgender sidebar is terribly misleading in my opinion. The article isn't even listed in the template, and it feeds the erroneous idea that drag queens are transgender people (although some of course are). Many people think drag queens and trans women are the same thing, and someone who reads the article and doesn't know what the former is may think so when seeing that sidebar. It makes it seem that drag queens fall under the "transgender" umbrella term although they definitely don't. I propose the Cross-dressing sidebar, which actually lists the drag queen article and includes several other topics relating to drag culture and its history; it also lists some transgender topics as well and clearly differentiates them from what drag is.--Bleff (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems pretty persuasive to me; I'm in favor of your proposal. Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Listed at: WT:SEX WT:LGBT, WT:SOCIOLOGY
Notifying top 10 editors by bytes: @Haileybuck, 76.98.184.25, Benjiboi, 98.28.74.234, 207.253.140.103, Viettdinh, Montrealais, and Pacian:
Mathglot (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Thanks to Bleff for raising (and resolving) this. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Everyone! My name is Haadiza and I am working on editing Wikipedia through the Wiki Education project. I was tasked with adding a link to my article from 2-3 other articles. I just wanted to let everyone know that I added a link to "drag show". Haadiza (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Two-spirits

Two-spirits were referenced in the lead as an example of "spiritual" drag, which seems like a misunderstanding of what two-spirits are (if necessary some of the native editors who've done a lot of work on the subject over on Talk:Two-spirit could be pinged to weigh in), as well as improper from a WP:LEAD standpoint, in that the lead is supposed to summarize the body, and two-spirits are never again mentioned in the body. I have therefore removed the (short, three word) mention of them -sche (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Clothing (wording)

The lead until recently said "...a male who dresses in clothing of the opposite sex..."; in a general article on drag, it's sensible to call it "clothing of the opposite sex", because drag queens wear women's clothes and drag kings wear men's, but in this article about draq queens, I think we can just use (and have changed it to) the more concise and arguably more precise (and simpler) "women's clothing" ("feminine clothing" would also work). (As an added advantage, that wording is still accurate/coherent with regard to cis and trans women who are drag/faux queens.) -sche (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Mention trans drag queens somewhere

Recent back-and-forth over the lead led me to notice that the article does not appear to mention, anywhere in the lead or body, trans women who are drag queens (e.g. Peppermint (drag queen)). There is probably enough coverage of this fact in RS (related to RuPaul's show and Pose, among other things) to stick a sentence into the article body somewhere. Although, I'm not sure where: the lead is supposed to summarize the body, but actually seems to mention a number of topics that are never explored in the body, including faux queens (if they were mentioned again in the body somewhere, that would seem like a reasonable place to add a sentence on trans queens). Incidentally, the existence of faux queens / cis and trans women who are drag queens does seem like reason to prefer the current version of the lead (compare Drag king, which is similarly inclusive) to the one which insisted drag queens were exclusively men. -sche (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The article structure is a bit lacking and could use further improvement, but I've tentatively found a place to put a brief overview of the range of sexualities and genders of people who perform as drag queens, so that the bits about that in the lead (some of which have been there for a while despite previously lacking body content, and some of which have been added recently) should be fine now. I also added two citations about drag as self-expression, so that part can stay in the lead, but I trimmed some other things, and adjusted the opening wording to mirror the improved body content and the lead-format of Drag king. -sche (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
These efforts are improving the article. Mathglot (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Too much in lede

There are bordeline irrelevant fringe phenomena (unsourced) in the lede which do not belong there, such as the entire "other performers" sentence and bingo. (In an article about ballet dancers, for example, we do not mention other kinds of dancers in the lede.) Please move them where you want them, down in the article text. If not, I will remove them. Since I do not feel they belong at all, I won't be trying to find a good place for them. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't yet checked to see how the lead exactly holds up to the rest of the article, but, with just a glimpse, I can see that it needs expansion...per WP:Lead. If what you want excluded is substantially covered lower in the article, it should likely be briefly noted in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
It isn't, and what's in the lede isn't brief. Rm now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't follow demands such as "remove now." You did what I would have told you -- do it yourself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not what I meant by "Rm now". I meant I am removing it now. I try never to give anyone direct orders here. My wording should have been clearer. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Too much unsourced POV & conjecture

I keep removing such additions. Though we assume everyone is acting in good faith, it would be great if we'd always source new info, not just write what we think looks nice. Some of our personal opininions may not be supported by reliable sources or even general knowledge. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If you think there's unsourced POV & conjecture here (and I don't disagree) try articles on language. Everybody is an expert. Sigh... Mathglot (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

"Usually"?

I will remove the confusing word "usually" from the first line of the article, unless someone can come up with a source where a woman has been called a drag queen. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I had removed this word once before already, and now it's back. I was going to go ahead and remove it again, but I noticed that in more recent edits, sourced material has been added which includes information about at least one trans woman who is a drag queen. In that case, the word "usually" now seems to be supported, whereas before, it wasn't. Unless information is forthcoming that the recently added sourced content is in fact incorrect, I think the word now has to stay. Mathglot (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I added to the body some <ref>s about women drag queens (including several trans women). -sche (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, so if 2-3 women get publicity in calling themselves drag queens, that means they are in fact drag queens? I think that fringe item does not belong in the lede and that in the article text it should be something like a few women also call themselves drag queens with those refs. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I could support that, unless there a lot more than two or three. -sche, what have you found on this? If it's really only a handful, Serge's proposal to move it to the body may make sense. Mathglot (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I am personally well acquainted with the subject and a variety of related persons since 1971. It has always been my experience that a drag queen is and distinctly wants to be a different kind of person that those, especially respected men, who "go all the way" (as it's often been called) and become women legally through extensive medical procedures. Those friends I have had, however, who have done exactly that would absolutely (absolutely!) never again want to be called drag queens. That's what they did all that gruelling, invasive and dangerous procedure to escape from! Thus, it's inconceivable to me that any significant amount of women really aspire to be called drag queens. And many many drag queens really revel in their freedom to be man or woman at leisure. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
It's true that most trans women today bristle at being called drag queens, because drag is performance / eintertainment, and their womanhood is not a performance for entertainment. However, it's trivial to find (and I had added one, and now added another) sources documenting that while drag queens are usually men, there are people of all genders who are drag queens — including not just trans women but moreover cis women, who are often termed bio queens or faux queens (which we have a whole article on the (sub)subculture of), but who are under the drag queen umbrella/parasol, and are also termed female drag queens. They've been part of the drag queen community for decades. The drag king article correctly scopes itself as "mostly female performance artists"; this article is likely currently correctly scoped as "usually male"; it would be inaccurate to say it's exclusively men, given the documented history of women also being drag queens. -sche (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
That seems persuasive. I'm aware of faux queens, so even without the trans element, that would be sufficient to support the wording, afaic. Serge, any other thoughts, or can we just leave this as is? Mathglot (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I really didn't feel like replying again, but will do so just to be polite. If it can be established through reliable sources that the extremely small amount of women (transsexuals or others) who call themselves drag queens warrants their being taken into consideration in the lede of this article, and that their claim to be drag queens is other than a fringe phenomenon, then by all means I give up. The basic idea that everybody is everything is tedious I find, and confuses things to the point where nothing really can be accurately described anymore, making an encylopaedia, naturally, a futile project. I don't believe in that approach. I believe our readers whenever possible, should have clarity, not issues clouded for sentences on end by over-emphasis of exceptional cases that really do not matter to the bigger picture. If faux queens have their own article, I think that article being recommended under "See also" is fully sufficient. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
PS thank you for asking. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Serge may have a point, here. NPOV calls for covering majority and minority views with due weight, but the views of tiny minorities should not be. Without having checked the data myself, my sense is that trans drag queens are rare, and depending how rare, any mention should either be moved from the lead to the body, or to the See also. So, -sche, when you mentioned above about trans drag queens, did you get a sense of how common it is? (I can think of one: Aleshia Brevard.) Web search can give a skewed impression; if one searches directly for a keyword, search results may show a significant number of results for that phenomenon, without indicating anything about how frequent it is within a containing category. I think this comes down to a matter of degree (minority vs. "tiny minority") so it might deserve some more research to tease out how common it is. Can you share any data or other thoughts you might have? Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll point out again that it's not just trans women but moreover cis women who are sometimes drag queens, as the refs I added before discuss: we even have an article on that (bio-queens / faux queens), which is handled under the "drag queen" umbrella by the sources on it that I've seen. We could strengthen the wording from "usually" to "almost always", if that would be clearer, but the lead should reflect the article scope (which the body also covers); compare how the "drag king" article has for years correctly said "mostly female". -sche (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
When I read the first line in this article I react on the "are people". That looks strange in my opinion to have to write that part in an article. The beginning in "Drag king" is much better. Therefor my opinion is that it should be changed to "Drag queens are almost always male performance artists who dress in..." (see Drag king). Then it is more accurate. (I agreed with Serge when reading this, and I know he is an expert in this field, but with the sources -sche found it is not correct to not write anything about it in the lead, even if it sems to be something very new). Adville (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I was surprised to read that there is an article on Faux queens. As to the prevalence and notabililty of women who perform as drag queens, I note that, unless I missed something, there is not a single "Faux queen" listed in that article that has a WP article of their own. This doesn't say much for there being a high or significant number of these individuals, compared to the usual definition. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Tweaking Adville's suggestion to: "Drag queens are performance artists, almost always male, who dress in..." to avoid the amusing ambiguity in the former version. Re Corbie: I don't know that you can necessarily extrapolate from the number of notable people in some category, to the number of people in the category total. Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to that wording.
Regardless of whether individual cis women drag queens have articles yet, their existence overall and that of trans women as drag queens (several do have articles, btw, linked in this article) is notable enough that I think we can afford to spare one or two words(!) to make the lead here reflect the scope of the article body, where both are discussed, per WP:LEAD. (I'd also note that trans drag queens are not "new"; Sylvia Rivera identified as both a transgender person and a drag/street queen; see also Paris Is Burning and other resources on that culture and era.) -sche (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drag_queen/Archive_3&oldid=1066094557"