# Talk:Margot Heuman

Is there a reason why this person is automatically called 'queer' on her page/the Did you Know section?
Some LGBT people do see this terminology as offensive and politically loaded and so it's very much a matter of personal choice to adopt it, which she doesn't seem to have done.
The article mentions her specifically coming out as a lesbian, so surely this would be a better, less ambiguous and more neutral way to identify her in a short summary? Is there anything wrong with saying 'both Jewish and lesbian'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovecore (talk • contribs) 07:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree.  This woman should not be referred to as “queer.”  How totally anachronistic and disrespectful.  She was a Jewish lesbian who spent much of her life married to a man.
This revision of the word “queer” is totally out of place here and very offensive 2603:7000:2600:34CF:CC3A:9B3A:F0AD:C680 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the sourcing of that claim is this article in Der Tagesspiegel. I don't know German, but if I'm right (in what seem to be pretty safe assumptions) that lesbische means "lesbian" while queere means "queer", then I think the source could be pretty comfortably used to support either assertion. The claim that she was the first queer Jewish woman to have survived a concentration camp is more directly attested in the source ("Margots Geschichte ist das erste Zeugnis einer queeren Frau, die als Jüdin die KZs überlebte"). The claim that she was the first lesbian Jewish woman known to have survived a concentration camp is also a fair enough conclusion, I think, so long as lesbian is a subcategory of queer. However, as far as I see, it's not directly stated in the piece. So on the basis of the sourcing in the page, I see no clear reason to prefer replacing the word queer throughout the article with the word lesbian. Do you have sources to support the assertion that the language in the Der Tagesspiegel source is incorrect when applied to the page subject? - Astrophobe (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the reasoning you've laid out here, Astrophobe, and I would emphasize that lesbian is a subcategory of queer. I also question the IP's application of the terms anachronistic and disrespectful given that Heuman is still alive and that the Der Tagesspiegel article was written in consultation with her. Besides, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, including the perceived misapplication of the term "queer" by reliable sources. That said, I agree that there should be more emphasis on the fact that she was a lesbian – I've tweaked the lede accordingly. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

How should Heuman’s sexuality be described in this article?

A: Uniformly as “lesbian”/“gay”/“homosexual”
B: Uniformly as “queer”
C: “Queer” in reference to her survival of the Holocaust, “lesbian”/“gay”/“homosexual” in reference to her specific identity
ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 15:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the best alternative would be "same-sex attracted" (as in: "As a lesbian, she is the first same-sex attracted jewish woman known to have survived Nazi concentration camps"). It encompasses both bisexuality and homosexuality, so it remains as broad as the appellation "queer". The term also manages to be both neutral and academic language. I do hear that the term "queer" is the one used in Anna Hajkova's article, which is the one used as a source here. However, Hajkova has a specific approach, which is the one of (quoting) "queer Holocaust history". I feel like using "queer" in the introduction to Margot Heuman's article is endorsing Anna Hajkova's methodology and approach, and that, as a result, the article may lack objectivity by being written from the point of view of a singular historian's writing. I am not saying we should completely erase Hajkova's work from Heuman's page, but I feel that it should be done in the rest of the article, and not in the introduction, where things are supposed to remain as objective as possible, and that it should be done in a way that clearly states the appellation "queer" comes from Hajkova's article (the introductory sentence is clumsy at best, as no source is put to justify the use of the word 'queer'). Furthermore, I'd like to point out that there is no quote in Hajkova's article that proves Heuman self-identifies as queer. I also feel that, by casually using that word in the introduction, it may water down its often derogatory connotations and potentially offend readers.
tl;dr: "same-sex attracted" is broad, neutral, and academic language, it doesn't endorse the perspective of a singular historian and is thus, more objective, and it has no derogatory connotations whatsoever. LisaSanson (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


### Discussion
C. “Queer” is a broad term used by the sources in stating that (as was summarized in the article lede before recent changes) Heuman is the first woman known to have survived Nazi concentration camps despite being both Jewish and queer. This is broader than saying that she was the first woman to survive despite being both Jewish and a lesbian, because lesbian is a subcategory within queerness and is therefore  smaller. By not using “queer” in that context, we deviate from the sources at the cost of a significant loss in precision. However, when referencing Heuman’s sexuality outside of the specific context of her status as a Holocaust survivor, we can and should describe her as a lesbian – sources do the same, and it becomes more precise than queer when we’re just referring to her as an individual. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 15:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Worth noting also that, contrary to IP editor(s)' description of "queer" as anachronistic, Heuman is alive and sources created in consultation with her use the term. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
C. Nothing wrong with "queer" used here. It's more accurate when used to summarize them as the first survivor who is both Jewish and not cis-het. Essentially, per Ezlev. (Summoned by bot) Hipocrite (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
C+, meaning I think "queer" is apt and near-necessary for referring to her unique status as a survivor and that any other sourced terms are appropriate for the rest of the article. The ubiquitous use of "queer" by reliable sources indicates that Wikipedia can do the same. Using only "lesbian" would lead to a deep inaccuracy. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
C is reflective of the sources.--Trystan (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
C in preference over the others, but really just "whatever the sources support", which clearly includes using that word. I have discussed this in a narrow context on this page, and that edit is relevant to this discussion. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
C as per above comments. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Can we not simply say "lesbian or bisexual"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

We can and we do: the page uses "lesbian" several times, which seems perfectly fine based on the available sources. The question is whether the word "queer" should also be censored, despite also appearing in in-depth reliable sources. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry on second thought there is an option (B) which would involve completely removing the descriptor "lesbian" from the page. I do agree that sourcing supports using that descriptor also, so I think option B is at odds with reliable sources just as I think option A is. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Astrophobe: No, I mean, can we not use the phrase I suggested in the absence of evidence that Heuman identifies with the term queer. Eg. "the first known lesbian or bisexual Jewish woman known to have survived the Nazi concentration camps". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
My position is that we can use the terms you suggest, but we need not only use the terms you suggest. Wikipedia policy is to refer to page subjects in the manner in which independent reliable sources refer to them, so long as it doesn't violate core content policies like WP:NPOV. Reliable sources refer to this page subject as lesbian and queer more or less interchangeably. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, Wikipedia policy is to avoid referring to living people with specific identity terms they have not publicly identified with. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that the subject has identified publicly with lesbian or bisexual but not queer? I would point out that "lesbian or bisexual" is a somewhat EXTRAORDINARY self-declared identity for a person to have, and should be subject to strict requirements of evidence.   Newimpartial (talk ⋅  contribs) 18:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: This sort of silly response is unbecoming. I'm participating seriously in good faith, please do me the same courtesy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
What makes you think I am not asking a serious question? I most certainly am. Newimpartial (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, the closest I can think of to a blanket policy on that topic would actually be the MOS section MOS:IDENTITY, which says the opposite: both that we should prefer common descriptors in recent reliable sources over self-identification, and that these judgments basically just revert to core content policies. A policy to avoid referring to living people with specific identity terms they have not publicly identified with would be incredibly broad; there's not much in common between, say, disputes about whether to say "Mormon" or "Latter Day Saints", how to classify people who disavow being Jewish despite being frequently described as Jewish in reliable sources, ethnic/national classifications in reliable sources that might not even be identities the page subject would recognize as such, etc etc ... It's hard to see how one policy could bear on all of that. But maybe there is a narrower policy I'm not aware of that bears more directly on this particular issue. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking of MOS:IDENTITY and WP:CATLGBT, yes. Fundamentally they're more about wanting to eschew gossip than about being picky about terminology - like, we'll categorize people as LGBT on the basis of them being open about being non-straight or having a same-sex partner without them identifying with the term "LGBT" or any of its sub-terms - but nonetheless I think the question is more about whether or not Wikipedia is ready to use "queer" as a synonym for "LGBT" across the board or to continue, as it has been, using it specifically for people who identify with it. I don't think that's the consensus of the community at this time and I think that that sort of change needs a broader RFC than on this one BLP. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
As Astrophobe has noted, we use "LGBT" as a source-based term and "queer" in the same way. What would you propose that we do differently? Newimpartial (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
That is what I would have thought also, that in the absence of any broader consensus (that I'm aware of) it would revert to being entirely based on what appears in RS about the subject at hand. That is, that the Wikipedia community does not need to make any such decision, but by default Wikipedia would be performing its core purpose of reflecting what is written in reliable sources, and that it would require (at least) an RfC to depart from that, not to affirm it. Maybe an RfC like that should happen, though I don't have high hopes about what that discussion would look like. Regardless, I think I've laid out my reasoning in this discussion as well as I am likely to, so I'll leave it at that. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
There was a relatively recent RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 224#RfC: LGBT that discussed standardization between LGBT/LGBTQ/LGBTQ+/Queer, with the consensus being not to standardize and to follow the sources.--Trystan (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
B/C: "same-sex attracted" does have derogatory connotations. I most strongly associate it with homophobic Christianity (though that doesn't seem to be the intention here). Rather, the better word to describe a similar thing is "queer", and reliable sources use the term. — Bilorv (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


### Meta-discussion
In the interest of building a well-reasoned and lasting consensus, I've notified WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Jewish history, and WikiProject Women of this discussion. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted to the long-standing status quo version, which includes "queer". I encourage opponents of "queer" to weigh in on the RfC and postpone any edit-warring away from the status quo until the discussion concludes. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The source says Heuman is "the first lesbian woman who survived the concentration camps as a Jew to talk about her story" and "Margot's story is the first testimony of a queer woman who survived the concentration camps as a Jew." The current article says "the first queer, Jewish woman known to have survived Nazi concentration camps" and "the first known woman to have survived the Nazi concentration camps despite being both Jewish and queer", which is, in my opinion, a broader claim not found in the source. The source also says "It is tragic that homophobic prejudice has prevented many queer Jewish women who survived concentration camps from leaving testimonies of their lives," but doesn't say that none of them were known, just that they didn't discuss it in their testimony. Difference in meaning aside, I think the emphasis of our wording is a bit off as well. The connotation of the statements in the source is "first among many to speak about this", while our wording sounds more like "first and possibly only, so far as we know". Thoughts on reframing it to better match the source?--Trystan (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

To be honest I don't see the discrepancy. "The first known X" means the first example of X that is well-documented and public knowledge. Unless there is documentation in reliable sources that somebody else provided earlier testimony identifying themselves as a lesbian who survived a concentration camp (which is a different story and would definitely threaten the claim in the article), I'm not sure what the mismatch is. The wording in the article means something like "the first time that there was a common knowledge example of a lesbian who survived a concentration camp, that example was Margot Heuman". "The first known" seems like a reasonable way to express this thought. We can derive from common sense that she wasn't in any literal sense the first lesbian to survive a concentration camp, but the reason that articles are written about her, and a reason that she has encyclopedic notability, is that she was the first commonly known example. This reminds me of the sort of conversations that happen at pages like List of the first openly LGBT holders of political offices, where people allege that so-and-so can be demonstrated to have beaten such-and-such to be the first LGBT whatever if you just read between the lines in their private diary, or that such lists are fundamentally illegitimate because there were gay british prime ministers in the 1700s but we just didn't know they were gay. The fact is that in-depth coverage in reliable sources often comes to those who are the first public examples of something that had already been going on for some time. I don't necessarily oppose rewording, but I don't follow the objection to identifying her as the first lesbian known to have survived a concentration camp by members of the general public without any special insight into the private lives of particular survivors, and I don't see why the current wording is an inadequate summary of that idea. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)