Talk:Drag queen/Archive 3

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)

@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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141018125340/http://www.vtiff.org/pastfilms/slingbacks-and-syrup to http://www.vtiff.org/pastfilms/slingbacks-and-syrup

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

Y 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 II}_{Talk 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203005833/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/sarria_j.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/sarria_j.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110425190102/http://www.bradfordshellhammer.com/interviews/2010/12/jer_ber_jones.html to http://www.bradfordshellhammer.com/interviews/2010/12/jer_ber_jones.html

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

Y 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)

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)

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:

• Weathers, Christeene. "Christeene by Chelsea Weathers". Art Lies. Retrieved 9 March 2013.
• Johnson, Dominic. "Vaginal Davis' Biography". VaginalDavis.com. Retrieved 9 March 2013.
• Walters, Ben (24 March 2010). "Welcome back David Hoyle: you're a divine director". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 March 2013.
• Shellhammer, Bradford (27 December 2010). "jer ber jones (Bradford Shellhammer : Interviews)". BradfordShellhammer.com. Archived from the original on 25 April 2011. Retrieved 23 March 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Romano, Tricia (1 December 2009). "How to Become a Tranimal". BlackBook. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
• Milk - Bio.

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaytoday.com/garchive/people/051997pe.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140614052021/http://www.rainbowhistory.org/html/drag.html to http://www.rainbowhistory.org/html/drag.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140308193548/http://www.newenglandfilm.com/magazine/archives/2009/01/slingbacks to http://www.newenglandfilm.com/magazine/archives/2009/01/slingbacks
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vtiff.org/pastfilms/slingbacks-and-syrup

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130723025158/http://www.northjersey.com/news/2012_Presidential_Election/Obama_inaugural_speech_references_Stonewall_riots.html to http://www.northjersey.com/news/2012_Presidential_Election/Obama_inaugural_speech_references_Stonewall_riots.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714215908/http://www.dragqueensonline.com/ to http://www.dragqueensonline.com/

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)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004221132/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/2010/11/is_tranny_so_ba.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/2010/11/is_tranny_so_ba.php

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Strongly support changing to the Cross-dressing sidebar for all the reasons Bleff articulated so well.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - its seem more logical to use the Cross-dressing sidebar. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not one who thinks every article needs a sidebar, but for those that have them, they should be as relevant as possible. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:18, 19 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)