LGBT History Project:Editorial Policy

Version: 2.10 | Last updated: July 2026 | Author: Jonathan Harbourne

Key changes in v2.10 (July 2026)

• §2.9 expanded: new sourcing requirement for Vox Pop and personal testimony entries – content must come directly from the subject or from a citable source they produced themselves.

Key changes in v2.9 (July 2026)

• §4.7 expanded to cover two separate processes: new articles (User namespace draft) and already-published articles (leave live, contact subject, apply BLP notice).

Key changes in v2.8 (July 2026)

• Published to lgbthistoryuk.org wiki; content unchanged from v2.7.

Key changes in v2.7 (July 2026)

• BLP (Biography of a Living Person) terminology introduced and defined in §2.4.
• New §4.7: Draft and Review Period for Biographies of Living People.
• Guidance on holding articles in draft using the User namespace.

Key changes in v2.6 (July 2026)

• New section 2.3: Contextualising Contested Organisations.
• New principle added to 2.1: Core Arguments requirement.
• Sections 2.3–2.10 renumbered to 2.4–2.11.
• Em-dashes corrected to en-dashes throughout.

1. Purpose

The LGBT History Project exists to provide accurate, balanced and inclusive information about LGBT history in the United Kingdom. Described as the country's leading wiki for LGBT history, it documents the people, places, organisations and events that shaped LGBT life in the UK, and serves the whole LGBT community.

2. Editorial Principles

2.1 Neutral Point of View

All articles should be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). This means:

• Presenting facts and evidence without editorial bias.
• Representing all significant viewpoints on contested topics fairly and in proportion to their prominence.
• Avoiding language that advocates for a particular position on contested issues.
• Distinguishing clearly between established fact and contested opinion.

Articles about movements, campaigns, ideological positions or contested organisations must include an explanation of the core arguments or positions held by those involved, presented in their strongest and most accurate form, clearly attributed to those who hold them. An article that covers only organisational structure, legal history or media coverage – without explaining what a movement actually argues – gives readers an incomplete and potentially misleading picture. This applies to gender-critical perspectives, trans-inclusive perspectives and any other contested position covered by this wiki. Where a significant counter-argument exists, it should be noted alongside the position it contests.

2.2 Inclusivity

The LGBT History Project serves the whole LGBT community, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, non-binary and queer people. Articles must not be written in a way that is hostile to, dismissive of, or demeaning towards any part of that community. In particular:

• Trans people and trans history are a legitimate and important part of LGBT history.
• Gender-critical perspectives may be covered factually where historically or currently relevant, but must not dominate or frame articles in a way that is hostile to trans people.
• The false conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia is a well-documented homophobic trope and must be contextualised as such wherever it appears.

2.3 Contextualising Contested Organisations

Some organisations covered by this wiki present themselves as LGB or LGBT but are contested within the broader LGBT community – typically on the grounds of trans inclusion. Where an organisation's stance on trans people is itself the substance of a dispute being covered, the article must provide enough context for a reader unfamiliar with the landscape to understand the nature of that dispute. In practice:

• Where one party to a dispute challenges the legitimacy, representativeness or charitable status of another, that challenge and its basis must be explained – not assumed to be self-evident to the reader.
• Naming an organisation in the context of a dispute, without explaining what it stands for or why it is contentious, is a form of bias by omission – one that is particularly common on topics involving gender-critical perspectives.
• The positions of mainstream LGBT organisations are relevant context where they bear directly on the dispute being described.

This applies in both directions: articles should not present a contested organisation as straightforwardly representing LGB or LGBT people if its standing in the community is itself disputed, but should equally avoid characterising it with loaded language from the opposing side. The aim is accurate description with context sufficient for a reader who does not already know the terrain.

Articles covering organisations that face significant criticism, or legal or regulatory scrutiny, must establish the organisation's purpose and work before covering those matters. An article in which controversy constitutes the bulk of the content – with only a brief description of what the organisation actually does – is structurally imbalanced, even if every individual fact is accurate.

2.4 Outing and Disclosure

Articles whose primary subject is a living person are referred to throughout this policy as biographies of living people (BLPs). BLPs require particular care: factual errors are harder to correct once published, and inaccurate or inappropriate content can cause real harm to living individuals. The standards in this section apply in addition to the general sourcing and accuracy requirements in §2.6. See also §4.7 for the draft and review process for BLPs.

Documenting a person's life is not the same as asserting their sexual orientation or gender identity where they have not themselves disclosed it.

• Living people: Never state or imply a person's sexual orientation or gender identity unless they have publicly disclosed it themselves, with a citable, reliable source.
• Historical figures (deceased): Documented relationships, behaviour and contemporary accounts may be described factually, with sourcing. Where identity is genuinely contested among historians, this should be presented as a live interpretive debate, not settled fact.
• Absence of public disclosure is not evidence of absence. Many historical – and some living – figures could not disclose due to legal or social danger.
• Where a family member, biographer or estate has made a disclosure on behalf of a deceased person, this may be cited as a source, with attribution.

2.5 Historical Terminology and Anachronism

Words like 'gay', 'lesbian', 'bisexual' and even 'homosexual' are modern categories of identity that did not exist, or did not carry their current meaning, for most of the history this wiki documents. Applying modern labels to historical figures requires care in both directions:

• Over-claiming: describing a historical figure simply as 'gay' or 'lesbian' can import a modern identity framework the person never had access to.
• Under-claiming: refusing to describe documented same-sex relationships purely because the modern vocabulary did not yet exist can become a form of erasure.

The recommended approach is to separate documented behaviour from modern identity-labelling, and where a modern term is used for clarity, make explicit that it is being applied as an analytical convenience.

2.6 Historical Accuracy

Articles must be based on reliable sources. Where possible, primary sources and reputable secondary sources should be cited. Wikipedia's sourcing standards provide a useful benchmark. Unsourced claims should be flagged or removed.

2.7 Scope – UK Focus

The LGBT History Project documents LGBT history and heritage within the United Kingdom. This is a deliberate scope decision, not an oversight.

2.8 Use of Generative AI

The use of AI tools to assist with drafting, research and editing is permitted, subject to human review and approval of all AI-assisted content before publication.

2.9 Oral History and Personal Testimony

First-hand memories and lived experience are a valuable and distinct category of content that this project actively welcomes. Personal testimony should be clearly marked as such and visually distinguished from factual article content.

A Vox Pop entry or personal recollection must be attributable to the subject themselves. Acceptable evidence of this is: (a) the entry was submitted directly by the subject via their registered wiki account or by email to the editorial team; or (b) the content reproduces or closely paraphrases material the subject has published elsewhere under their own name, with a citation to that source (for example a personal blog, published autobiography, or personal website). Content about a living person contributed on their behalf by a third party – however trusted – does not meet this standard without the subject's explicit consent on record. Where consent cannot be confirmed, the

This article is under editorial review. It is a Vox Pop entry (first-person personal account, which is acceptable as self-sourced recollection) but names other living people in ways that require a human editorial check before this notice can be removed. See the talk page for details.

notice should be applied until it is.

2.10 Takedown Requests

Requests from individuals or organisations to remove or amend content will be acknowledged promptly, reviewed against editorial principles, acted upon where content is inaccurate or harmful, and declined where content is accurate and appropriately sourced.

2.11 Image Licensing and Provenance

Text contributions are published under CC BY-SA. Images are governed separately – see LGBT History Project:Photographs.

3. Image Policy

See LGBT History Project:Photographs for full image rights policy.

4. Editorial Governance

4.1 Account Registration

New contributors must apply for an account via the ConfirmAccount system.

4.2 Content Review

Edits by registered contributors are held in a pending review queue until approved by an administrator.

4.3 Sensitive Pages

Pages about trans identity, trans rights, contested political topics, legal cases with ongoing relevance, and living people are subject to enhanced review.

4.4 Editorial Team

Jonathan Harbourne (founder, primary administrator) and Ross Burgess (co-administrator). The Editorial Policy page and LGBT History Project:Photographs are restricted to editorial board head only (Jonathan).

4.5 Edit Summaries

Every edit must include an edit summary describing what was changed and why.

4.6 User Pages

Every registered editor is encouraged to maintain a user page noting their geographical knowledge, organisational involvement, professional background and areas of interest.

4.7 Draft and Review Period for Biographies of Living People

A biography of a living person (BLP) requires careful handling, and the appropriate process depends on whether the article is being published for the first time or is already live.

This process does not give subjects editorial control over how they are described. It is a courtesy check for factual accuracy, not an approval mechanism. If a response is received, any factual corrections should be applied promptly; editorial decisions – scope, framing, inclusion – remain with the editorial team. If no response is received within 14 days, the article stands.

New articles (not yet published)

Articles about living people that are not yet ready for publication should be saved in the User namespace rather than the main article namespace. Save the article at User:LGBT-HP/ArticleName rather than ArticleName.

A page in the User namespace renders like a normal wiki page and is accessible to anyone with the direct link, but it does not appear in search results, article categories, or the site's main navigation. This means you can share the link directly with the subject for review, without the article being publicly discoverable.

Where the subject can be contacted, send them the User namespace link with a clear invitation to flag inaccuracies or raise concerns. If no response is received within 14 days, use the Move page function to transfer the article from User:LGBT-HP/ArticleName to ArticleName. This preserves the full edit history in one place.

Where the subject cannot be contacted, review the article with particular care and apply the BLP unsourced notice before publishing to the main namespace.

Already-published articles

If a BLP is already live in the main namespace, do not move it to the User namespace. The article is likely already indexed by search engines; moving it would create a broken link at the original URL and split the edit history across two pages.

Instead:

• Contact the subject with the existing article URL and invite them to flag inaccuracies.
• Apply the BLP unsourced notice if citations are missing.
• Apply factual corrections promptly if the subject raises them; the 14-day rule applies in the same way.

The fact that an article is already published does not reduce the editorial team's obligation to act on factual errors when they are identified.