1013:
keep it here. One of the reasons there isn't a more reliable source for the content it supports is that the term is a relatively new one, and for now, until more is written about it, it's the best one we have. This talk page will reflect it, so instead of categorically removing the content, it should remain as is, for now. This article doesn't even fulfill the criteria for GA, mostly because it's not long or broad enough, at least not yet. It doesn't need to; most WP articles don't and probably never will. Why should this small, obscure, relatively unimportant article be under the extra scrutiny that most others aren't, especially since it's not going through any of our review procedures like GAN or FAC?
987:
as especially unreliable even compared only to other user-generated content online. The article makes significant claims that are attributed only to UD and not corroborated by any other source, which strikes me as problematic (many definitions are personal in-jokes, irony, pop culture references, vehemently biased, random nonsense, etc.). It is almost like citing 4chan. I do not think that its inclusion is justified in the name of trying to comprehensively define a new word. I was a little surprised to find it cited in the first place. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove it, although if this is unacceptable to anyone they are free to revert my edit.
158:
371:
353:
441:
1076:). It seems to me that if broadness/completeness is pursued even in the absence of RS, then we just end up with a lot of articles full of very detailed but very unverified information, which seems less encyclopedic to me than a small amount of information that can be verified. I second 71.191.208.132's point that UD is simply not reliable under any circumstances. That there are no better sources does not mean that
281:
263:
291:
728:
74:
53:
22:
84:
1332:
relevant information to cover in terms of its definition and controversy (all cited in this article) to be notable enough to receive a full page instead of a simple paragraph in another article. As for the encyclopedic part, I do feel that the article does a decent enough job of showing the reasoning behinfd the term, the definition, and its controversy, without taking one particular side.
979:
for it helping make the article comprehensive. I think that there are times we need to break the policy about RS in order to be comprehensive, as long as it's done rarely and prudently. We can also put a note on the article's talk page explaining why we've included it. When and/or if the term becomes more widespread, and more is written about it, we can use other more RS than the UD.
189:
1503:
websites such as dictionary.com are not legitimate sources of dictionary material. The spelling womxn is a political motivated revamp of a word clearly defining the human female. This is an affirmation that the community pushing this is attempting to change the meaning of male and female and not just
1352:
The controversies of the term womxn are touched upon but barely discussed. No thought is given to the objections among non-binary people that the term “womxn” seeks to combine both women and non-binary folk in a way that conflates them, or portrays non-binary folk as an different type of women rather
1080:
should be broken; it means that the unverifiable information should not be included. As far as I am aware, highlighting the potentially inaccurate nature of an article on its talk page is not a typical alternative to reliable citation or removal. I suggest this not because of the criteria for GA, but
986:
reliable in content. It is a website to which anybody can add entries with little to no moderation and no mechanism for verification. Definitions are ranked by their up-vote to down-vote count, like on Reddit. To be honest, I would characterize it as the diametric opposite of a reliable source, and
890:
I also wanted to explain some of my changes. I did a google search, a google book search, and a google scholar search for sources. I found that there aren't a lot of sources about the topic, since the term is a recent invention. Most of the sources used the term without explaining the reasons or
859:
From the introduction "It has been used in a similar manner as womyn and wimmin, as a rejection of the
English-only etymology of 'woman' from Old English wifmon (wife-man). " The claim that wifmon means wife-man is not supported in the link to the English etymology or the citation. From the English
1375:
I share you obvious frustration with this small article. The reason why the items you list aren't included in the article is because no one has been able to find reliable, secondary sources to support your assertions. Once we either find them or they appear somewhere, they'll be added. If we added
1331:
Disagree. This term has had multiple incidents receiving large amounts of coverage, the term itself has received some levels of coverage outside of these incidents, and the term was defined in
Dictionary.com. Regardless of your personal opinion of the term itself, in my opinion the term has enough
978:
Although it's not technically a reliable source because it's a user-generated site, there's a case to accept it for this article because the Urban
Dictionary defines newer words. I think that if Dictionary.com didn't include it, we couldn't make the case for accepting the UD. There's also a case
894:
I removed the sections about uses in the different countries, mostly because the references in these sections aren't reliable and only list that the countries and organizations that use the term, not why. Then I included notable instances of its use, with as reliable sources as possible, like the
1012:
and broadness/comprehensiveness. One is not more important than the other, and sometimes you have to give up part of one to fulfill the other. I stand by my previous assertion that in this one case, although UD isn't the most reliable source, it assists with broadness, so I think that we should
1121:
2) Using "Many advocacy groups..." in the lede also may be suggesting it's a bigger movement that it is (promotion). One may find random university blogs but I wouldn't say "many". Better to keep this encyclopedic about what it is rather than venture into deciding or implying level of cultural
779:
This article reads like an original thinkpiece from a fringe online magazine. It states as if it is plainly obvious and part of the general knowledge that the unadorned word "women" somehow has racial connotations hearkening back to the
Atlantic Slave Trade, without a lick of evidence.
1267:
are stubs. There's nothing wrong with stubs, you know. They give a space for topics that are new and undeveloped. I think we can anticipate that this article will eventually be written about more, so it should have its own article that will most likely be expanded later.
1294:
Actually, looking over it again, I may agree with
Christine. I think I overestimated the fraction of this article that had been sourced from Urban Dictionary. I do think a merge would work, but I also think there's enough here to warrant keeping it as its own article.
802:
Agree with the user above. Most of the introduction and "background" rely on far too many unproven assumptions. The article as a whole reads as if this term is used far more frequently than it really is. It is really a term only used by a small subset of academia.
1396:
An entire section strikes me as potentially overkill given how short this article is, but at the very least I think it makes sense to add some discussion of that to the "Current uses" section. I found this opinion piece from
Insider that can be used as a source:
932:
Thanks for the effort to rewrite this article. However, immediately in the first few words of the lede, the #1 citation is student-published blog. The author, Maria: "Maria is a sophomore at
Franciscan University of Steubenville. That doesn't seem to be a WP:RS.
891:
history of the term, so I didn't include them because if I did, this article would just be a list of every person, group, and organization that uses it. I don't think that's within the scope of this article, which should focus on its history and etymology.
1551:
The spelling womxn has been adopted by some as a more inclusive alternative to womyn (womyn n.), which is perceived as marginalizing certain groups, especially ethnic minority and transgender women. For others, womxn is itself an exclusionary
1042:
My bad re: orphaning references. I have nothing else to add to this conversation, although I still tend towards thinking UD shouldn't be used as a source. Go ahead in adding it back in if you deem that the best course of action.
740:
386:
aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from
Knowledge. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
1228:
I think "womxn" and "womyn" should be merged into an article titled "Alternative spellings of 'woman'", or something like that. Both articles are stubs, and the secondary sources seem to mostly mention them together.
1130:
3) the intro pronunciation looks odd. 1st "woman" is listed then "womanx", but the "x" is before the "n". Do we have an RS that shows it doesn't follow
English phonetic rules and is "womanx" not "wom" + "x" + "n"?
1027:
Another thing: when you remove content like you did, you need to make sure you don't orphan any references that were left behind. A bot came by later and rescued them, but it still made more work for someone else.
912:
As per the above, and after waiting seven days, I have cut and paste the new content here. There was some discussion, centered on my sandbox's talk page, that I will move here. Thanks, hope I've made it better.
887:. All interested parties please take a look and tell me what you think; once we get a consensus about my draft's content, I'll replace this article's current content and paste in my version.
514:
829:
Specific cleanup of this article can be achieved by removal of all non WP:RS. Once these are removed it may be easier to decide objectively if this is original research w/o reliable sources.
810:
617:
179:
838:
Other sources are self-published blogs. Existing on the
Internet is not a qualification as a WP:RS. i.e. citation from a self-published wordpress blog about page in lede was removed (
1085:, which every Knowledge article should fulfill regardless of size. If there are not enough RS to make anything but a stub, then the entire article should be merged or deleted as per
883:, I have revamped and rewritten this article. Also, I agree with the opinions expressed above regarding this article's tone and references. The draft is in one of my sandboxes,
1316:
I agree, this does not deserve its own article. It's not a notable topic and is by no means of encyclopedic quality. A mere paragraph in the woman article would be sufficient.--
1187:, which mentions "womxn", and some of the same text about the rational for a new spelling of "woman", might the best solution be to delete this article completely and make sure
1647:
1617:
464:
412:
1523:
694:
539:
489:
245:
235:
1627:
1612:
658:
418:
1068:
relates to the intentional censorship of information due to potentially illegal or unethical consequences, so I don't believe it applies here (also, the page on
898:
Again, please discuss, especially what should be added. I'm not as familiar with feminist and LGBTQ issues, so please take note of the article's tone. Thanks.
1652:
1642:
1622:
1210:, while "womxn" is more inclusionary. I highly suggest that you get an account and username; it'd add to your credibility in discussions like this. Thanks.
880:
460:
211:
1637:
1191:
is complete? It seems this article exists only to advance a new alternative competitor to other spellings, rather than a new concept the word represents.
1420:
Something about TERF's not wanting the term "women" to refer to trans women. Also there's no such thing as a "non-binary woman", that would be "AFAB".
1602:
756:
140:
130:
319:
202:
163:
1607:
1597:
507:
1180:
Posting a re-write may not be sufficient as a strategy to remove the flags on the article in general as being more than a promotional piece.
1505:
1050:
994:
388:
378:
358:
861:
532:
106:
1632:
1455:
Source 2 is a blog that markets products. The author of the article referenced also involved in SEO and the marketing of products.
1192:
603:
315:
305:
268:
814:
784:
521:
884:
568:
1429:
1146:
97:
58:
1398:
644:
610:
453:
33:
832:
Many citations are from organizations that qualify as WP:RS but are opinion articles thus "Statements of Opinion". See
210:
and related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
496:
1489:
1470:
1385:
1273:
1215:
1161:
1156:
There were no sources that support the "wom" + "x" + "n" pronunciation. And no source explains the reason for it.
1033:
1018:
959:
918:
903:
1425:
585:
178:
157:
1562:
1405:
1300:
1234:
1098:
1090:
1054:
998:
599:
482:
1509:
21:
1458:
1254:
936:
Please remove all text and citations from non-reliable sources so we can review your version for submission.
865:
1440:
1196:
1069:
1065:
676:
788:
1576:
1531:
954:, I have removed the un-RS as per your suggestion. I believe that it should now be acceptable. Thanks.
1485:
1466:
1381:
1358:
1269:
1250:
1211:
1157:
1029:
1014:
955:
914:
899:
783:
I suggest deleting the entire "background" section and just keep/improve on the usage sections for now.
651:
383:
39:
895:
Seattle march and the U.K. museum. I also listed the universities that use womxn in their promotions.
1421:
1370:
1354:
1134:
1086:
1046:
990:
806:
744:
557:
1558:
1401:
1337:
1296:
1230:
1094:
630:
624:
105:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1436:
1142:
941:
850:
764:
731:
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between
982:
I disagree. UD doesn't fail the criteria for WP:RS on a technicality, it is very substantively
1572:
1527:
1321:
546:
471:
844:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper)
595:
579:
207:
665:
89:
1571:
Oooh! Good find! That should probably be added to the article in the definition section.
314:-related issues on Knowledge. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
1519:
1399:
https://www.insider.com/using-the-phrase-womxn-doesnt-mean-youre-trans-inclusive-2021-3
1333:
748:
637:
440:
194:
1591:
1138:
951:
937:
846:
760:
590:
370:
352:
1444:
1377:
1317:
1077:
296:
1524:
Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 349#Reliability of dictionary.com
1207:
1206:
I disagree, anonymous IP. According to this article, the term "womyn" excludes
1082:
1073:
1009:
843:
839:
833:
727:
280:
262:
682:
286:
184:
79:
1542:
Also, the spelling "womxn" is published in the OED Third Edition as of 2021:
73:
52:
1459:
https://yourdaye.com/vitals/cultural-musings/what-is-the-meaning-of-womxn/
1064:
Which guideline are you referring to with "broadness/comprehensiveness"?
834:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion
102:
1325:
1200:
1504:
gender norms. There is no spelling womxn in any published dictionary.
860:
only etymology linked 'In Old English, wīfmann meant "female human"'
1249:
I agree. An "Alternative spellings of 'woman'" page makes sense. --
1264:
311:
310:, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
1435:"nonbinary women" was fixed to "nonbinary people"in latest edit.
1463:
1263:
I disagree, of course. First of all, neither this article or
15:
1580:
1566:
1535:
1513:
1493:
1474:
1409:
1389:
1362:
1341:
1304:
1277:
1258:
1238:
1219:
1165:
1150:
1102:
1058:
1037:
1022:
1002:
963:
945:
922:
907:
869:
854:
818:
792:
768:
1484:
The Etymology section reads as original research..
1415:
1380:, which isn't allowed here on Knowledge. My regrets.
722:
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
1188:
1184:
206:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
417:This article has not yet received a rating on the
1376:the information you request, it would constitute
1008:It seems that two policies are in conflict here,
618:Knowledge requested photographs of gender studies
1451:Source 2 is a Blog and author marketing products
975:1) Can we consider "Urban Dictionary" a WP:RS?
1546:Women. Also occasionally as singular: a woman.
840:https://womynscentre.wordpress.com/why-the-y/
8:
19:
1648:Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
1132:
1044:
988:
804:
465:Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
448:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
426:
347:
257:
152:
47:
1416:I'm pretty sure this is just a TERF thing
757:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment
695:Gender studies articles needing attention
540:Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
1618:Mid-importance Women's History articles
755:Above undated message substituted from
349:
259:
154:
49:
1348:Add a section to discuss controversies
220:Knowledge:WikiProject Women's History
7:
1628:WikiProject Women's History articles
1613:Start-Class Women's History articles
811:2620:0:1A10:7802:90CC:3E1F:D530:68EB
397:Knowledge:WikiProject Gender studies
223:Template:WikiProject Women's History
200:This article is within the scope of
95:This article is within the scope of
1653:WikiProject Gender studies articles
1643:Start-Class Gender studies articles
1623:All WikiProject Women-related pages
1176:Does "womxn" deserve it's own page?
400:Template:WikiProject Gender studies
38:It is of interest to the following
1125:I have removed the offending word.
881:1000 Women in Religion WikiProject
736:
732:
461:Unassessed Gender studies articles
328:Knowledge:WikiProject LGBT studies
14:
1638:WikiProject LGBT studies articles
928:Please cite only reliable sources
825:Remove all non "Reliable Sources"
604:Women's education in Saudi Arabia
331:Template:WikiProject LGBT studies
1603:Mid-importance Feminism articles
1072:states that is is overridden by
739:. Further details are available
726:
439:
369:
351:
289:
279:
261:
187:
177:
156:
82:
72:
51:
20:
1353:then separate gender entirely.
885:User:Figureskatingfan/Sandbox 5
302:This article is of interest to
240:This article has been rated as
135:This article has been rated as
1189:https://en.wikipedia.org/Womyn
1185:https://en.wikipedia.org/Womyn
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Feminism
1:
1608:WikiProject Feminism articles
1598:Start-Class Feminism articles
1430:02:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
1410:19:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
1390:19:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
1363:18:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
879:Hello, at the request of the
793:21:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
214:and see a list of open tasks.
118:Template:WikiProject Feminism
109:and see a list of open tasks.
1464:https://monicakarpinski.com/
1382:Christine (Figureskatingfan)
1270:Christine (Figureskatingfan)
1212:Christine (Figureskatingfan)
1158:Christine (Figureskatingfan)
1030:Christine (Figureskatingfan)
1015:Christine (Figureskatingfan)
956:Christine (Figureskatingfan)
915:Christine (Figureskatingfan)
900:Christine (Figureskatingfan)
819:17:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
769:05:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
1494:00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
1475:00:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
203:WikiProject Women's History
1669:
1581:18:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
1567:18:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
1536:17:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
1514:16:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
419:project's importance scale
379:WikiProject Gender studies
246:project's importance scale
141:project's importance scale
1633:Start-Class LGBT articles
1522:is a reliable source per
1342:00:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
1326:21:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
1305:15:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
1278:15:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
1259:20:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
1175:
1166:03:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
1151:22:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
1103:01:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
1059:03:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
1038:01:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
964:17:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
946:05:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
923:22:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
908:22:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
855:19:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
586:Brannon Masculinity Scale
425:
416:
364:
274:
239:
172:
134:
67:
46:
1239:13:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
1220:02:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
1201:03:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
1023:21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
1003:18:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
870:16:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
600:Michael Kaufman (author)
376:This article is part of
306:WikiProject LGBT studies
226:Women's History articles
1445:00:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
798:Mostly an opinion piece
403:Gender studies articles
28:This article is rated
515:/Sexuality and gender
391:for more information.
318:or contribute to the
645:Gender studies stubs
98:WikiProject Feminism
743:. Peer reviewers:
631:History of feminism
741:on the course page
34:content assessment
1378:original research
1153:
1137:comment added by
1091:WP:NOTADICTIONARY
1061:
1049:comment added by
1005:
993:comment added by
821:
809:comment added by
775:Needs an overhaul
719:
718:
715:
714:
711:
710:
707:
706:
703:
702:
346:
345:
342:
341:
256:
255:
252:
251:
151:
150:
147:
146:
121:Feminism articles
1660:
1486:Flibbertigibbets
1467:Flibbertigibbets
1374:
1070:WP:COMPREHENSIVE
1066:WP:Comprehensive
875:Overhaul\rewrite
771:
738:
734:
730:
596:Media and gender
508:Deletion sorting
443:
436:
435:
427:
405:
404:
401:
398:
395:
373:
366:
365:
355:
348:
336:
335:
332:
329:
326:
299:
294:
293:
292:
283:
276:
275:
265:
258:
228:
227:
224:
221:
218:
197:
192:
191:
190:
181:
174:
173:
168:
160:
153:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
85:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1668:
1667:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1588:
1587:
1559:Justin Kunimune
1501:
1496:
1482:
1453:
1418:
1402:Justin Kunimune
1368:
1350:
1297:Justin Kunimune
1231:Justin Kunimune
1178:
1095:Justin Kunimune
930:
877:
827:
800:
777:
754:
745:Bridgetsheppeck
733:20 January 2021
724:
699:
689:Needs attention
402:
399:
396:
393:
392:
333:
330:
327:
324:
323:
295:
290:
288:
225:
222:
219:
217:Women's History
216:
215:
208:Women's history
193:
188:
186:
166:
164:Women's History
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
90:Feminism portal
88:
83:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1666:
1664:
1656:
1655:
1650:
1645:
1640:
1635:
1630:
1625:
1620:
1615:
1610:
1605:
1600:
1590:
1589:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1548:
1539:
1538:
1520:Dictionary.com
1506:104.139.29.103
1500:
1497:
1483:
1481:
1478:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1422:Zorya's Leshak
1417:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1393:
1392:
1349:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1223:
1222:
1183:On looking at
1177:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1062:
1051:71.191.208.132
1025:
995:71.191.208.132
973:
967:
966:
929:
926:
876:
873:
826:
823:
799:
796:
776:
773:
723:
720:
717:
716:
713:
712:
709:
708:
705:
704:
701:
700:
698:
697:
685:
672:
661:
647:
633:
620:
606:
575:
564:
553:
542:
528:
517:
503:
492:
490:/Collaboration
478:
467:
447:
445:
444:
432:
431:
423:
422:
415:
409:
408:
406:
394:Gender studies
374:
362:
361:
359:Gender studies
356:
344:
343:
340:
339:
337:
301:
300:
284:
272:
271:
266:
254:
253:
250:
249:
242:Mid-importance
238:
232:
231:
229:
212:the discussion
199:
198:
195:History portal
182:
170:
169:
167:Mid‑importance
161:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Mid-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Mid‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1665:
1654:
1651:
1649:
1646:
1644:
1641:
1639:
1636:
1634:
1631:
1629:
1626:
1624:
1621:
1619:
1616:
1614:
1611:
1609:
1606:
1604:
1601:
1599:
1596:
1595:
1593:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1547:
1544:
1543:
1541:
1540:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1498:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1479:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1460:
1456:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1437:Blackjackrobo
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1400:
1395:
1394:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1372:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1266:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1251:DickLittleHat
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1181:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1154:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1129:
1124:
1123:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1087:WP:NOTABILITY
1084:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1026:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1007:
1006:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
985:
981:
980:
977:
976:
974:
971:
970:
969:
968:
965:
961:
957:
953:
952:User:Eturk001
950:
949:
948:
947:
943:
939:
934:
927:
925:
924:
920:
916:
910:
909:
905:
901:
896:
892:
888:
886:
882:
874:
872:
871:
867:
863:
862:50.37.233.117
857:
856:
852:
848:
845:
841:
836:
835:
830:
824:
822:
820:
816:
812:
808:
797:
795:
794:
790:
786:
781:
774:
772:
770:
766:
762:
758:
752:
750:
746:
742:
737:21 April 2021
729:
721:
696:
692:
690:
686:
684:
681:
679:
678:
673:
670:
668:
667:
662:
660:
656:
654:
653:
648:
646:
642:
640:
639:
634:
632:
629:
627:
626:
621:
619:
615:
613:
612:
607:
605:
601:
597:
593:
592:
591:Holy Virility
587:
584:
582:
581:
576:
573:
571:
570:
565:
562:
560:
559:
554:
551:
549:
548:
543:
541:
537:
535:
534:
529:
526:
524:
523:
518:
516:
512:
510:
509:
504:
501:
499:
498:
493:
491:
487:
485:
484:
479:
476:
474:
473:
468:
466:
462:
458:
456:
455:
450:
449:
446:
442:
438:
437:
434:
433:
429:
428:
424:
420:
414:
411:
410:
407:
390:
385:
381:
380:
375:
372:
368:
367:
363:
360:
357:
354:
350:
338:
334:LGBT articles
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
298:
287:
285:
282:
278:
277:
273:
270:
267:
264:
260:
247:
243:
237:
234:
233:
230:
213:
209:
205:
204:
196:
185:
183:
180:
176:
175:
171:
165:
162:
159:
155:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1573:Sideswipe9th
1550:
1545:
1528:Sideswipe9th
1502:
1499:Dictionaries
1462:
1457:
1454:
1419:
1351:
1315:
1193:47.154.17.49
1182:
1179:
1133:— Preceding
1122:acceptance.
1045:— Preceding
989:— Preceding
983:
935:
931:
911:
897:
893:
889:
878:
858:
837:
831:
828:
805:— Preceding
801:
782:
778:
753:
725:
688:
687:
675:
674:
664:
663:
659:/translation
650:
649:
636:
635:
623:
622:
609:
608:
589:
578:
577:
567:
566:
556:
555:
545:
544:
531:
530:
520:
519:
506:
505:
495:
494:
481:
480:
470:
469:
452:
451:
389:project page
377:
325:LGBT studies
316:project page
304:
303:
297:LGBTQ portal
269:LGBT studies
241:
201:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
1371:OddTetrapod
1355:OddTetrapod
1208:trans women
1081:because of
785:38.32.32.42
671:edit to see
574:edit to see
563:edit to see
552:edit to see
527:edit to see
502:edit to see
483:Collaborate
477:edit to see
430:To-do list:
384:WikiProject
30:Start-class
1592:Categories
683:Riot grrrl
558:Notability
320:discussion
1480:Etymology
1334:Doomhiker
972:better. '
749:JacksonFA
652:Translate
1147:contribs
1139:Eturk001
1135:unsigned
1047:unsigned
991:unsigned
938:Eturk001
847:Eturk001
807:unsigned
761:PrimeBOT
497:Copyedit
382:. This
112:Feminism
103:Feminism
59:Feminism
1318:Tallard
580:Orphans
533:Infobox
472:Cleanup
244:on the
139:on the
842:) See
677:Verify
666:Update
522:Expand
454:Assess
36:scale.
1552:term…
1265:Womyn
1078:WP:RS
638:Stubs
625:Split
611:Photo
547:Merge
312:LGBTQ
1577:talk
1563:talk
1532:talk
1510:talk
1490:talk
1471:talk
1441:talk
1426:talk
1406:talk
1386:talk
1359:talk
1338:talk
1322:talk
1301:talk
1274:talk
1255:talk
1235:talk
1216:talk
1197:talk
1162:talk
1143:talk
1099:talk
1089:and
1083:WP:V
1074:WP:V
1055:talk
1034:talk
1019:talk
1010:WP:V
999:talk
960:talk
942:talk
919:talk
904:talk
866:talk
851:talk
815:talk
789:talk
765:talk
735:and
693:see
657:see
643:see
616:see
569:NPOV
538:see
513:see
488:see
463:and
459:see
984:not
759:by
413:???
236:Mid
131:Mid
1594::
1579:)
1565:)
1534:)
1526:.
1512:)
1492:)
1473:)
1443:)
1428:)
1408:)
1388:)
1361:)
1340:)
1324:)
1303:)
1276:)
1257:)
1237:)
1218:)
1199:)
1164:)
1149:)
1145:•
1101:)
1093:.
1057:)
1036:)
1021:)
1001:)
962:)
944:)
921:)
906:)
868:)
853:)
817:)
791:)
767:)
751:.
747:,
602:·
598:·
594:·
588:·
1575:(
1561:(
1530:(
1508:(
1488:(
1469:(
1439:(
1424:(
1404:(
1384:(
1373::
1369:@
1357:(
1336:(
1320:(
1299:(
1272:(
1253:(
1233:(
1214:(
1195:(
1160:(
1141:(
1097:(
1053:(
1032:(
1017:(
997:(
958:(
940:(
917:(
902:(
864:(
849:(
813:(
787:(
763:(
691::
680::
669::
655::
641::
628::
614::
583::
572::
561::
550::
536::
525::
511::
500::
486::
475::
457::
421:.
322:.
248:.
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
