Documentation

sexual orientation
the sexual orientation of the person relative to their declared gender — use ONLY IF they have stated it themselves, unambiguously, or it has been widely agreed upon by historians after their death

Represents

sexual orientation (Q17888)

Data type

Item

Domain

human (Q5), fictional character (Q95074), character that may or may not be fictional (Q21070598) or alter ego (Q201662)

Allowed values

heterosexuality (Q1035954), homosexuality (Q6636), bisexuality (Q43200), gay (Q592), lesbianism (Q6649), non-heterosexuality (Q339014), asexuality (Q724351), gray asexuality (Q8354594), aromanticism (Q52746927), pansexuality (Q271534), demisexuality (Q23912283), sapiosexuality (Q20011275), polysexuality (Q2094204), gynephilia (Q1558475), androphilia (Q513896), male homosexuality (Q2257941), androsexuality (Q43850015), gynesexuality (Q43850027), omnisexuality (Q97180617), skoliosexuality (Q89364372), sexual fluidity (Q19810527), unlabeled sexuality (Q25326668), pomosexuality (Q3626860), Achillean (Q115068942), sexuality determined by the player (Q123138223), Sapphism (Q25447263) or undisclosed sexual orientation (Q124704647)

Example

Albert Verlinde (Q1965433) → homosexuality (Q6636)
Madonna (Q1744) → bisexuality (Q43200)
Tracer (Q25204271) → lesbianism (Q6649)

Lists

Living people protection class

property that may violate privacy (Q44601380), property likely to be challenged (Q44597997)

Proposal discussion

Current uses

Total	7,452
Main statement	7,375	99% of uses
Qualifier	76	1% of uses
Reference	1	<0.1% of uses

Search for values

[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]

One of heterosexuality (Q1035954), homosexuality (Q6636), bisexuality (Q43200), gay (Q592), lesbianism (Q6649), non-heterosexuality (Q339014), asexuality (Q724351), gray asexuality (Q8354594), aromanticism (Q52746927), pansexuality (Q271534), demisexuality (Q23912283), sapiosexuality (Q20011275), polysexuality (Q2094204), gynephilia (Q1558475), androphilia (Q513896), male homosexuality (Q2257941), androsexuality (Q43850015), gynesexuality (Q43850027), omnisexuality (Q97180617), skoliosexuality (Q89364372), sexual fluidity (Q19810527), unlabeled sexuality (Q25326668), pomosexuality (Q3626860), Achillean (Q115068942), sexuality determined by the player (Q123138223), Sapphism (Q25447263), undisclosed sexual orientation (Q124704647): value must be one of the specified items. Please expand list if needed. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). Known exceptions: anonymous (Q4233718)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P91#One of, values statistics, SPARQL

Value type “sexual orientation (Q17888)”: This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value sexual orientation (Q17888) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)

List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P91#Value type Q17888, hourly updated report, SPARQL

Type “human (Q5), fictional character (Q95074), character that may or may not be fictional (Q21070598), alter ego (Q201662)”: item must contain property “instance of (P31), subclass of (P279)” with classes “human (Q5), fictional character (Q95074), character that may or may not be fictional (Q21070598), alter ego (Q201662)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)

List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P91#Type Q5, Q95074, Q21070598, Q201662, hourly updated report, SPARQL

Qualifiers “reason for deprecated rank (P2241), reason for preferred rank (P7452), object named as (P1932), applies to work (P10663)”: this property should be used only with the listed qualifiers. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P91#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL

Scope is as main value (Q54828448), as qualifier (Q54828449): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P91#Scope, SPARQL

Citation needed: the property must have at least one reference (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). Known exceptions: anonymous (Q4233718)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P91#citation needed

Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P91#Entity types

This property is being used by:

Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)

Constraints[edit]

Claims without source
Each P91 claim needs to have at least one (non Wikipedia) source (Help)
Violations query:

SELECT DISTINCT ?item { ?item p:P91 ?claim; wdt:P31 wd:Q5 . OPTIONAL { ?claim prov:wasDerivedFrom ?source . ?source ?p ?v . FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?v wdt:P31 wd:Q10876391 } } FILTER(!bound(?source)) }

List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P91#Claims without source

Rules for Usage[edit]

Rule	Archived Discussion
Use this property only together with a reference in that the person itself states her/his sexual orientation or for historical persons if most historians agree	Ongoing discussion (german),

Discussion[edit]

Archived creation discussion[edit]

Sexuality/Sexual Orientation[edit]

Reedy (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In some cases this might be of general interest, normally it's none of your business. --Kolja21 (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If someone has publicly stated their sexual orientation, why should we not include it? Legoktm (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "private property"! Wikidata is not yellow press, the same with length, diameter, cup size, how often... Whoever edits a box about a person will feel urged to make a statement about sexual orientation, even if there is no public source about it.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose With personal data we must be very careful. For instance, the sexual orientation is an issue on which researchers do not have a consensus if it is a valid classification at all. It is a bit like race, but more complex. --Teemu (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sexual orientation is a perfectly valid thing to include in Wikidata if there are clear sources to say someone self-identifies a particular way. And there are a lot of people for whom their sexual orientation is an important matter. Is it "yellow journalism" to say Harvey Milk is gay? Perhaps it's intrusive to say Martin Luther King is black or that the Pope is a Catholic. Tom Morris (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we need this info? At least not in Wikipedia, because it's not encyclopedia material, just trivia. --Stryn (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, like those cited by Tom Morris, those are indeed key things to undertand what makes the pesron important. What bugs me is: where should we stop ? And I am afraid this is something of a cultural matter. For instance, many infoboxes in English Wikipedia include religion or ethnicity, while that would sound rather out of place to many French people. --Zolo (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just "trivia", any more than the Pope's religion is trivia. There are a large number of categories on English Wikipedia which are based around a person being LGBT. It's of interest to people in gender and queer studies to be able to locate, say, lesbian writers or gay filmmakers. For some individuals, their sexual orientation is of trivial importance, for other people it is of great importance and is, like race or religion or national origin, something which profoundly shapes their character, interests, self-understanding, social role, beliefs and career. You can't understand Derek Jarman or Peter Tatchell unless you understand that they are gay. You can't understand the life of Alan Turing unless you deal with the fact that he was convicted of and punished for being gay. Tom Morris (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support No more prone to abuse than any number of properties. It'd have to have a description like "the sexual orientation of the subject IF AND ONLY IF they have stated it themselves, unambiguously, or it has been widely agreed upon by historians after their death", but, I don't see any problem with such a property in general. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait the extension of the referencing to create that property and then delete every entry which doesn't have a reference. Snipre (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At this stage, is this really the piece of information the general support for the project needs to be tested with? I do understand the cultural value of the information, but I oppose to the quantification offered by storing it. --Susannaanas (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Created using PinkAmpersand's wording. James F. (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm drawing up some proposed guidelines on the talk page, and will post again here to invite everyone to dicuss, once I'm done with them. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you really want to undertand someone, you will probably read a real text about him. Just seeing in a database that Alan Turing was gay will not carry you very far. I suppose this kind of property is more useful for data-mining or things like that. --Zolo (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted some proposed usage guidelines at Property talk:P91, and invite all of you to comment. Thanks. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed guidelines on use[edit]

Note: Unless otherwise noted, "label" in this thread shall be understood to refer to a description of one's sexual orientation, not to a Wikidata label.

I propose that the rules for use of this property be as follows:

If the subject is alive, or has died recently enough that the enwiki en:WP:BDP policy might apply (i.e. their depiction has repercussions on the public images of other living people), the property may only be set if they have clearly stated that their orientation.

If the subject is open about being non-heterosexual, but has never chosen a specific label, then the property may be set as "non-heterosexual" (Q339014).

However, simply being in a public relationship with a member of the same sex should not be considered an admission of non-heterosexuality. For instance, while Lindsay Lohan has never denied her relationship with Samantha Ronson, she's said that she isn't a lesbian, and has declined to classify herself as bisexual. There exist individuals who are in public relationships with members of the same sex who insist that they are entirely heterosexual otherwise (I have a teacher like this), and while some may disagree as to whether or not this is possible, we should respect people's self-labeling, and not simply dub them non-heterosexual because they didn't try to hide a same-sex relationship.

(Likewise, if someone has stated explicitly that they aren't heterosexual, and has been in open relationships with both members of the same sex and members of the opposite sex, the should not be assumed to be bisexual. One can be pansexual, polysexual, or any number of less-frequently-used labels. [Note also that while "polysexual" is used as an umbrella term for bisexuals and pansexuals, it also (unlike "non-heterosexual") has significant usage as a label itself, and as such should not be treated as a default term for openly non-heterosexual, non-homosexual people.])

Additionally, there is no "default" sexual orientation. To list someone as heterosexual, they must have explicitly stated that they are heterosexual. Doesn't matter if you're talking about Chuck Norris, the Pope, or Ayman al-Zawahiri, no one is assumed to be heterosexual.
Finally, technical terms - i.e. "homosexual", "heterosexual", "bisexual", "pansexual", etc., should always be used, unless the subject has explicitly said something like "Oh, 'homosexual' is such a clinical term. I prefer to be called 'gay'."

If the subject is deceased (and not subject to BDP), then we have a bit more leeway. If there is a general consensus among historians that they were a specific orientation, then that orientation may be used.

If, as often happens, historians agree that the subject was not heterosexual, but disagree as to whether or not they were homosexual, bisexual, or some other label, then it is acceptable to list all non-fringe theory labels. This will make much more sense once we have sources enabled, but, basically, if some people say Lord Byron was gay and some say he was bisexual, then put both, and cite reliable sources for each claim.
If there is a significant number of historians who state that the subject was heterosexual and a significant number who state that they were homosexual, then, both claims may likewise be included.

However, be very wary of fringe views. Do not include some obscure claim that JFK was gay, or some convaluted argument that "proves" that Alan Turing should be considered straight. (I say this reluctantly, as someone who wrote the first few scenes of a screenplay about Napoleon being gay.)

It's only necessary to include a historical subject's heterosexuality if there'd be any reason to doubt it. While some historical figures' sexualities (e.g. Abraham Lincoln's) are the subjects of popular debate to a degree that some historians might have laughingly replied "no, they were straight", there's no reason to list any sexual orientation for someone like... I don't know... Dwight D. Eisenhower or Mao Zedong, who no one has ever seriously claimed was gay.

— PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support the use of this property unless, of course, w:en:WP:BLP is applied to it. And yes, technical terms would be favorable because common terms tend to be imprecise.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete[edit]

Discussion moved to Wikidata:Properties for deletion. --Stryn (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is now archived at Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2013/Properties/1#Property:P91. --Stevenliuyi (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No bots please[edit]

I've just left a message with the operator of Dexbot. The bot has added what is probably thousands of statements about sexual orientation of people (including living people) by simply copying them from en.wiki. On average, that information is pretty good but a bot can't really tell if the info is good enough for the fairly strict restrictions placed in the definition of the property. In particular, I think we can all agree that this is unacceptable for living people. Pichpich (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chirlane McCray[edit]

What should be the "sexual orientation" of Chirlane McCray? She came out as a lesbian at the age of 17, and even wrote an essay "I Am a Lesbian". She's currently married to Bill de Blasio and together they have two children. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of unsourced P91 statements[edit]

Following discussions at Wikidata:Project chat#Unsourced sexual orientation (P91) statements (September/October 2016) and Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2016/08#Unsourced and Wikipedia sourced P91 statements (August 2016), I removed all unsourced P91 statements from items about humans (almost 5000 statements). This data can of course be added again, if a valid source is provided as well. Since the complex constraints report of unsourced statements contains also items about fictional characters, you might want to find new violations with this query:

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?sexualOrientation ?sexualOrientationLabel WHERE { 
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5 .
  ?item p:P91 ?foo . 
  ?foo ps:P91 ?sexualOrientation . 
  OPTIONAL{ ?foo prov:wasDerivedFrom ?source } 
  FILTER(!bound(?source))
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" }
}

Try it!

If only a small amount of items is affected, it would be worth to spend effort into finding sources for the statements in question, rather than remove the data. However, as of beginning of October 2016 an amount of almost 5000 unsourced claims piled up, which would require an estimated time of ~200 hours to source. It is very unlikely that any Wikidata editor spends this time for sourcing. The removed data was to a large extent imported from Wikipedias (which is undesirable anyway), so that most information is not completely lost anyway. If you are looking for sources, I’d recommend to visit Wikipedias and see what they have… —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion from WD:PC has meanwhile been archived to Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2016/10#Unsourced_sexual_orientation_.28P91.29_statements. Claims sourced solely by imported from Wikimedia project (P143) have been removed as well. Those can be found by this query:

SELECT ?item WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5 .
  ?item p:P91 [
    prov:wasDerivedFrom ?ref
  ] .
  ?ref pr:P143 [] .
  FILTER NOT EXISTS {
    ?item p:P91 [
     prov:wasDerivedFrom ?ref2 
    ] 
    FILTER (?ref2 != ?ref ) 
    FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?ref2 pr:P143 [] } .
  }
}

Try it!

. —MisterSynergy (talk)

Is being married to the other gender enough to be a source for their sexual orientation? And if so, what would be the best way to state that? Q.Zanden questions? 20:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. They can be bisexial, pansexual, asexual, or just simply in a marriage of convenience. – Máté (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Rios (Q15266701) isn't a «constraint violation» for sexual orientation (P91)[edit]

As you can read in the provided URL for claim source, Cassandra Rios (Q15266701) does not contain any «constraint violation» for sexual orientation (P91):

Cassandra Rios is the pen name or, if you prefer, the heteronim who wrote all of the books. Cassandra Rios is lesbian.
Odete Rios is the birthname of the person who wrote all books. At the time of the given interview provided as a source (2001), she was 68 years old. The way that she figured to publicize their personal sexuality was to say
Português: A opção sexual da Odete é uma coisa... [Bruscamente] Acredito que você poderia respeitar minha privacidade! Acho que pelo menos a Odete deve ficar incógnita. Escritor é um mito, tem que se preservar, não tem que aparecer.
—Odete Rios, URL provided as a source

Doing it in a similar way that was done on Fernando Pessoa (Q173481) and his heteronims will not properly adress the issue: Fernando Pessoa also wrote works without adopting any heteronim, but all works of Odete Rios have been wrote within the Cassandra Rios name.

In short, this is a single example of ignobious correction that the most prominent Wikimedians does and bites the qualified users from collaborating. The entire Wikimedian movement knowns this issue, but did nothing to properly address it. As we are talking about brazilian writers, maybe the WMF volunteers should read the books by Paulo Freire A.S.A.P. to change their behaviour – until at least is anyone interested to contribute on WMF projects. Lugusto (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sexual orientation & European General Data Protection Regulation[edit]

In the Project chat I have posted a message concerning this property in particular to the European General Data Protection Regulation. It would be great of someone can provide some insights in the matter. Romaine (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

gay (Q592)[edit]

Notified participants of WikiProject LGBT

Are there any reason for gay (Q592) to be used when the items homosexual and lesbian exists?--Trade (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We only use homosexuality (Q6636) for value of P91 not gay or lesbian. Amir (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The number of items that states sexuality as 'lesbian' or 'gay' suggests otherwise.@Ladsgroup:--Trade (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: They are distinct concepts. "Gay" refers to culture or identity and "homosexual" refers to an activity. There is no strict definition of this in Wikidata or anywhere else. People use a range of labels. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know very well what the terms means but this is about what items we ahould use with this property. We have to keep in mind how the use of this property affects query's --Trade (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People get labels of gay/lesbian whatever and activity can get labels of homosexual, etc. I put a gay label on myself, Lane Rasberry (Q26202725) -> sexual orientation (P91) -> gay (Q592) and used my English Wikipedia page as a source. If we have labels for porn movies or the performance of porn actors then maybe they can get heterosexual or homosexual tags. Historical figures also can get homosexual labels if we know their activity but not their culture. The established social label for contemporary people is gay, straight, etc and only in unusual circumstances "homosexual". Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried that allowing both gay, homosexuality and lesbian as values for this property would make it harder dor people to use this property property in a query. You are welcome too removey change if you disagree--Trade (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a mess because real world is messy. For example, lots of time, people are listed as lesbian/gay in the press when they are bi/pan (bisexual erasure FTW), some people just say "I am queer", some people say "I do not care", etc. I usually use the label when explicitely given by a ref (and look specifically for those when searching refs), or use non-heterosexuality (Q339014) when the only source I can find is "This person is married with this other" (often seen in sport), because that's the most generic one. People can discuss whether Marielle Franco (Q50542097) is bi or lesbian based on the sources, or just erase it because LGBT folks do deserve to be protected from visibility or something, but I think no one would deny she was not heterosexual because that would be the most common denominator of all sources.

And yes, when doing queries, you have to know that. Personally when doing queries (for me or others), either I am looking for non heterosexual folks in general, and the query is quite easy (just everything on P91 but heterosexuality (Q1035954)), or the queries are restricted by sex or gender (P21), and sometime a job/industry, and the real problem is often on the occupation (P106) side (and sex or gender (P21) to be trans inclusive, mostly because people forget that part). But having for example women tagged lesbianism (Q6649), homosexuality (Q6636) or gay (Q592) is not a blocker. In fact, on gay (Q592), the french text say this is also used by women in english, and I did see that a few time. So garbage in, garbage out (Q1569381). And also, on top of that, there is the issue of translation and different languages (and do not get me started on fictional characters). --Misc (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the french text say this is also used by women in english, and I did see that a few time. And yet the item is marked as a subclass of 'men who have sex with men' but not 'women eho have sez with wem'. Do you think this is intentional?@Misc:--Trade (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what I did mean is that I did see woman saying "I am gay" to mean they are homosexual/lesbian (or sometime bi). I personally think that this shouldn't be in the description in Wikidata (because WD:D say it should be short and to disambiguate), but what I do understand that words have meaning that changes, and gay was pretty much used to cover all the groups we now put under the LGBT umbrella before as seen as on that article in 2016 the one about Subaru, with japanese execs looking in the dictorionnay to see that "targetting gay" mean "Joyous", while they were marketing to lesbians. --Misc (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: for one example, I just stumbled on Sheryl Swoopes (Q270683). That was 15 years ago, so not that recent, but also closer than my Subaru example. We can see that Sheryl Swoopes say "I am gay" in the interview I used as a ref, because she was dating a women at that time. But she was with a man in the past, and according to WP, she is back with a man now. From a purely behavior point of view, I do think people would say this count as bi, but I am not keen on adding "bisexual" when people didn't use it (despites having strong opinions on the topic), for the same reason that saying bi folks are homo is not great. For now, I used the joker "not hetero", because I do feel everything else is problematic, but a strict interpretation of "use what people say" would surely be different, and so would "use what is closer to what people do". And given she was one of the first to come out, the option "do not include it" is also not great. --Misc (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any process which anyone wishes to use as a starting point is fine. If anyone feels strongly though they can document what they like, then the community can discuss. There were lots of discussions about gender and I documented proposed systems at Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT/gender. We could use one for sexual orientation also and this could happen at Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT/sexual orientation if anyone had something to say and wanted to put it in a place where people would find it. Progress from this will come when someone drafts their idea. All ideas are welcome, even if it seems like an idea has problems. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think all usages of gay and lesbian should be changed to homosexuality, a gay is a male homosexual person and a person cannot be a sexual orientation (unless their first name would be sexual and the family name would be orientation). In order to avoid bi-erasure, we might be able to use non-hetorsexuality as the value for cases we don't know the exact sexual orientation but we are sure the person is not straight. How does that sound? Amir (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of bisexual erasure… Trade, I’ve just reverted this edit of yours, which I assume was only meant to remove gay (Q592) from the list of allowed values, but actually removed bisexuality (Q43200) as well. Please be careful when editing constraint statements. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just added queer (Q51415) as an allowed value, because it’s sometimes used as a self-description, and I wouldn’t know what other value to use in such cases. And I think this more or less reflects my opinion on this discussion as well: use the label(s) which people have declared for themselves. Especially if a non-binary person calls themselves a lesbian, for example – who am I do relabel them as homosexual? (Edit to add: and people writing queries will just have to deal with this complexity to make sure their queries are correct, e. g. by adding /wdt:P279* in the right places; this is already the case when querying sex or gender (P21).) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea. If it is clear that they use queer to identify as non-heterosexuality (Q339014), you may use that item. If it's not clear (e.g. may or may not be heterosexual but identify as queer because they are not cisgender), don't use any. – Máté (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. non-heterosexuality (Q339014) is a generic "they're not straight", whereas queer (Q51415) is a specific subset of that. non-heterosexuality (Q339014) might mean that we know the subject is not straight but we don't have something more specific; that's not the same as, for example, Steven Canals (Q83854821) who identifies as "queer" (per the refs I just added on restoring the statement). I'm sorry, Máté, but I disagree — it feels like erasure to me. I definitely think we should restore queer (Q51415) as a permitted value, like Lucas Werkmeister had done. As Misc put it, "real world is messy" — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenBlacker: But that's the issue: queer is not a specific subset of non-heterosexuality. A heterosexual person can be queer (saying otherwise is erasure). Queer in itself implies nothing about sexual orientation. It means that the person is either not heterosexual, not cisgender or both. A straight trans person can identify as queer just as easily as an asexual cis person. – Máté (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Máté: I'm not sure I agree. One thing that absolutely is erasure, though, is removing a well-sourced statement like you just did for Steven Canals (Q83854821). Don't do that. If you absolutely must insist that queer (Q51415) not be used as a value, then change it to non-heterosexuality (Q339014) rather than removing the sexual orientation (P91) altogether. How is that useful?! — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Máté: More constructively of me, however, perhaps using object named as (P1932) as a qualifier with a value "queer" on a statement value non-heterosexuality (Q339014) might be a compromise for someone who is clearly (per source) using the term as a descriptor meaning that their sexual orientation is not straight? — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenBlacker: Changing the value is what I usually do but you seemed quite against it that's why I went for deleting the wrong statement in this case. Using P1932 works for me though. – Máté (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Máté: Ah, that makes sense. Cool, I can live with that I think. It complaints that object named as (P1932) isn't a permitted qualifier. I've not edited properties much; is there netiquette around adding it as a permitted qualifier? Or should I just Be Bold™? 😊 — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenBlacker:, it looks like it's been done by @Máté:. I've gone ahead and put that to use here (after a couple of tries before finding this conversation)—thank you both! Perryprog (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consult with WikiProject LGBT before making mass changes to this[edit]

Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT

This property got mass removed in the discussion at special:permalink/1175058381#sexual_orientation_&_European_General_Data_Protection_Regulation. Go to Wiki LGBT to talk through LGBT issues!

Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listeria query to watch refs[edit]

So, Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT has some queries related to that properties, so we avoid the May 2020 problem again:

LezWatch.TV actor ID (P7105)[edit]

Is this property a sufficient source when listing a persons sexuality?

Notified participants of WikiProject LGBT--Trade (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes. From their FAQ: "How sure are you that the actors you’ve marked as queer are queer? We only list actors as queer when they themselves have said so. This means statements in legitimate news interviews (i.e. not TMZ), their own tell-all books, or public statements. If there’s any doubt, we don’t out. This can result in the opposite problem, of course, misattributing heterosexuality and cisgender to known queer. We do our best to properly designate the actor’s preferred gender and sexuality. In some cases (like when they state themselves to be 48% lesbian) we default to queer. If you’re an actor and would like us to correct or modify your listing, please let us know. We would much rather define you by the terms you prefer." It sounds like they only mark actors as such when there's some legitimate statement from the actor. ohmyerica (talk)

@Trade, Ohmyerica:I worked with the site runners to set up the Mix 'n' Match catalogs for their site, and have added a bunch of the people's Wikidata items. At initial creation of individual people, I generally do not add the listed sexuality because I'd rather someone double-check the site's work. But I know they take their data seriously. Since they've said that sometimes "cisgender" or "heterosexual" are their defaults for unknown, no matter what I would not use LezWatch.TV as a source for those.

If useful, when I helped them think through how Wikidata would align with their terms, I made this list of equivalencies for sex or gender (P21).

LezWatch gender (as self-identified by referenced person)	Wikidata equivalent sex or gender (P21)
Cisgender Woman	female (Q6581072)
Cisgender Man	male (Q6581097)
Trans Woman	trans woman (Q1052281)
Trans Man	trans man (Q2449503)
Non-binary	non-binary (Q48270)
Gender Queer	genderqueer (Q12964198)
Gender Fluid	genderfluid (Q18116794)
Intersex	intersex (Q1097630)
Demigender	demigender (Q63715923)
Agender	agender (Q505371)
Hijra	hijra (Q660882)
Two Spirit	two-spirit (Q301702)
Non-binary Transgender Woman	no current gender item quite fits
Non-Binary Woman	no current gender item quite fits
Transgender Non-Binary	no current gender item quite fits

And this one for sexual orientation (P91)

LezWatch sexuality (as self-identified by referenced person)	Wikidata equivalent sexual orientation (P91)
Homosexual	homosexuality (Q6636)
Bisexual	bisexuality (Q43200)
Heterosexual	heterosexuality (Q1035954)
Pansexual	pansexuality (Q271534)
Queer	no exact match, non-heterosexuality (Q339014) doesn't quite feel right, should probably create new item
Undefined
Asexual	asexuality (Q724351)
Demisexual	demisexuality (Q23912283)
Fluid
Unlabeled

A bit frustrating to note one of the relevant items (gender: demigender demigender (Q63715923)) has since been deleted on a "notability" claim when it clearly meets a structural need. Sweet kate (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You missed genderfluid (Q18116794). @Sweet kate:--Trade (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, non-heterosexuality (Q339014) was created for that purpose. People use queer because it is vague (not going to say people want to make my life as a wikidata contributor harder, but I can't exclude a world wide conspiracy on that), and non-heterosexuality (Q339014) is the least precise one we have. If people wanted to use a more precise term, they would use it, and so would we too. People decide to use something unprecise with changing meaning, so we have to resort to use our joker. I would also map "Transgender Non-Binary" to non-binary (Q48270), because people aren't assigned NB at birth as far as I know, so would defacto be transgender if we take "transitioning" as a condition for being trans. To clarify, I mean that all people who do transition (group A) would be transgender (group B). Saying that A is included in B is not controversial, controversy is wether A == B or not (and what count as "part of A"). But I would say that transgender NB is just NB, like a trans women is a women. I do not think there is a concept of cis NB, no one is assigned NB at birth afaik. NB Women do also seems like a contradiction, all the NB folks I know are quite adament into saying they are not women/men, but we can also just add 2 items (women/NB) on P21 and be done with it. And for Unlabeled/Undefined, just do nothing or "some value". And I would place Fluid under non-heterosexuality (Q339014). Since Fluid imply changing sexuality (so at least 2), either that's between 2 sexuality that count as non hetero sexual, or that's heterosexual + another one. In both cases, that would fall under non-heterosexuality (Q339014) logically. So sure, we would lose information but at the same time, since that do not express much, I am not sure what we would lose exactly. And in the end, if we want to stick to labels as such rather than concept, maybe it will be easier to just use a free form string for the property, or maybe add a qualifier for that. In fact, a qualifier would help to use the exact words used and languages. --Misc (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet kate wants demigender (Q63715923) restored due to structural need. @MisterSynergy: --Trade (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please add a proper definition to demigender (Q63715923). —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original question was whether a classification in LezWatch.TV (Q65659302) and matching through LezWatch.TV actor ID (P7105) was good enough to discern sexual orientation (P91). I say yes. I invite anyone with more to say to discuss this at Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT and to propose policy and best practices there. This issue has arisen repeatedly and eventually we need to point to a guide and collect all previous conversations to guide future practice. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

announcement date (P6949) or point in time (P585) as qualifier for when someone announced sexual orientation (P91) ?[edit]

To indicate that Megan Barton-Hanson (Q123900125) stated her sexual orientation (P91) in 2019, I used announcement date (P6949) as a qualifier in this edit. Should I use point in time (P585) as a qualifier instead?

Neither announcement date (P6949) nor point in time (P585) are listed as qualifiers for sexual orientation (P91).

Lovelano (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird that we don't have date properties as qualifiers, some people change their orientation over time and things like this are nice to have. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Property talk:P91

Contents