Talk:Bisexual chic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Facts?

This looks a lot like a personal essay than anything else by an anon: See history of this article. Wikipedia:No original research applies? Maybe an articles justified but it needs a lot more cites and NPOV. Probably better to just redirect and merge to Bisexuality. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Catamorphism 18:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

--I guess you weren't in high school in the last two or three years? It probably should be merged with bisexuality, but there's a lot of truth there.

I never went to high school, but I don't think that has any bearing on whether this article needs to conform to the citation policy that applies to all articles on Wikipedia. Catamorphism 06:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Bisexual chic is a very definite societal trend. I don't doubt that bisexual chic should be covered in an article on bisexuality, but I disagree with merging it. I have revamped the article, adding to it considerably, trying to maintain a more NPOV and providing references. Can we take the flags off now, or does it need more work? Iamvered 06:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not perfect (I added a few {{fact}} tags), but it's much better now. I think it would be reasonable to take the flag off. Catamorphism 20:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Article cleaned up

I have provided appropriate documentation and straightened out (!) the POV on the article. I hope it suffices. If not, somebody slap the DISPUTED tag back on it, and we'll keep cracking at it! Iamvered 03:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The OC

I'm not sure if it makes any sense to say "The OC" has the first visibly bisexual character in network history. What about Sandra Bernhard on "Roseanne"? Since that's mentioned in the same article, I think the historical first mention should probably be taken off. --Amynewyork4248

I agree, and will do. Iamvered 21:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What needs fixing?

This article has been tagged for cleanup and original research. Would someone please indicate specifically what areas need attention, and I will make appropriate edits. Thanks! Iamvered 21:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am currently moving through the backlog of pages tagged as original research. Frankly I can't see why it has been tagged. You can untag it if you want to, I see no reason why not. I will not do it myself though because I am unsure of why it was placed there to begin with. Maybe the references should all be listed below and not just the published ones. It is fine that they are in the text itself but I think it would deter people from tagging it as original research if the article listed them as external references as well. There seems to be some active interest in this article so I say let the article grow and more sources will eventually make their way into the article. Seems like a notable term. MartinDK 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with above so I am removing the "original research" tag now. May I ask that if anyone feels it was removed precipitously that they please assume good faith and first contact persons who have/are working on the article citing specific concerns. CyntWorkStuff 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Need to discuss on Talk page and gender Double standard on bisexuality

I) Editors should write on talk page before they make serious changes on the page, changes that seriously change content.

II) There is a clear double standard in the 2000s. It is acceptable for a woman to be a bisexual; if a man is a bisexual, he is accused of not having two affinities but of being a closeted gay man. This is an issue of fairness and consistency. Arbol25 08:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Note: The version to which this comment refers is here. The entire article focused on backing the idea that there were "waves" of bisexual chic. After removing these unsourced claims, very little remained.

This article gloriously fails WP:NOR. The alleged "waves" of "bisexual chic" have no sources to support their existence. Is it NPOV to refer to a sexual orientation as a "trend" (8 instances) or a "fad" (1 instance), as this article does? This article approaches the increasing visibility of bisexual people as a pop-culture trend, as though a person's sexual orientation is comparable to a person's choice to sport a leisure suit or big hair. This article references many people who have come out as bisexual, using this as "evidence" of so-called "waves" of "bisexual chic". Apparently, these are similar to waves of feminism, but instead of being backed by a rich cultural history and extensive written works, this article is backed mainly by "Look! Glam rock! Madonna and Britney! A bunch of out bi people!"

Granted, I am not definitively saying that bisexuality isn't culturally relevant, or that cultural acceptance of bisexuality has not changed over time. It is, and it has. However, documenting "the trend" in the manner that this article approaches it is, at best, amusing, and, at worst, a poorly sourced position paper on bisexuality as "the in thing". Joie de Vivre 18:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree. Certainly "bisexual chic" is a notable term and I think Wikipedia should have an article on it, however we shouldn't be stating things like "X is a trend", but rather reporting on what other sources are saying. Mdwh 19:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think proving waves of chic-ness would be difficult unless someone has already done that research that could be referenced. Take that aspect out and the article can stand well wikifying. Benjiboi 19:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, it would been helpful if you had tried to find some sources before gutting the article so badly it's now useless. DevAlt 23:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to start with a vague idea, then try to find sources to back it up. The main flow of the article went "The first wave of bisexual chic came with glam rock in the 70s. Then AIDS came in the 80s 'and the fad waned'. (that's a direct quote). Then girls started kissing on TV and it became cool again."

I really found it ridiculous to frame public awareness of bisexuality in the idea that it came in "waves". We already have Media portrayals of bisexuality and List of bisexual people. I don't think it's fair to write this article by looking at history through the lens of a catch-phrase. It's like writing an article that purports to be representative of all black people in America, and calling it "Gangsta culture". Never mind that there are black physicians and scientists and families, we should only focus on "gangsta culture" and how it was a heraldry that was representative of black people everywhere. Joie de Vivre 23:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The article as it was needed help but not wholesale deletion. I thought most of it was thoughtful and brought up reference points that, to me, were meaningful just not encyclopedic enough. I suggest reinstating the version that was there and citation tagging items (gently) that need sourcing. Also the entire article could have been re-organized with nuances like "possible origins" to suggest that research still needed to take place. I see this article in the same arena as size queen where there could be good sources out there but they have to be unearthed even though we know what a size queen is. Maybe not likely to find a lot in peer-reviewed journals but there should be something. Also, some editor obviously spent a lot of energy in that work, if nothing else most of it can be re-sectioned into "Rise of Bisexuality in Pop Culture"Benjiboi 03:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors can always find the version in the history, and add back material that is sourced, or move it to a "Bisexuality in pop culture" article or section somewhere (I'm not sure it should be in this article, as it's possible POV to suggest this is part of a fashion). I think size queen is a pretty bad article too. Mdwh 04:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Joiedevivre, it's not "framing bisexuality", it's framing bisexual chic. "The main flow of the article went "The first wave of bisexual chic came with glam rock in the 70s. Then AIDS came in the 80s 'and the fad waned'. (that's a direct quote). Then girls started kissing on TV and it became cool again."" is a fairly accurate description of the trendiness of bisexuality over the past few decades. This isn't to endorse it, I find it exceedingly irritating, particularly regarding stereotypes but you can't simply deny a phenomenon space because it doesn't reflect well on the one it is based on. DevAlt 10:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

But I don't see proof of any such phenomenon. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but from the sources given, I don't see proof that it did. Is "many celebrities coming out of the closet as bi" to be interpreted as a fashion trend? I realize that bisexuality means that you can choose a male or a female partner. I realize that some straight people might experiment with same-sex activity to see if they like it. But I don't see proof that it's "the cool thing" other than in the minds of onlookers who exoticize things that are new to them. Who thinks that people are asserting bisexuality to be cool, the bi-identified people themselves, or the people watching and commenting? Who do we allow to conclude why people do things? Joie de Vivre 15:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think proving waves might prove elusive (although folks talkking about waves of bisexual chic kept popping up in my research) but just as it was and has been fashionable to assert being gay, androgynous and other cultural trends (like smokingm drinking, sex in general,) so has it been a fashion to pretend to be or experiemnt with being bisexual. I view this in broader terms of people, usually of younger generations, experimenting with new ways of living or being that is often facilitated by moving to a new area, a new school, a new country. Smoking, drinking, dancing, sex and sex outside social norms are all potential rebel activities that are not uniquely American phenomena but certainly we are leaders in this area with our constantly changing lives with people, of all classes, moving throughout the country. And mass media documenting the stories about our lives. I've witnessed bisexual (and gay, and lesbian, and trans) chic so I know it's real. I also don't see this as a slam against bi folks or anyone else, just youthful experimentation of people playing with gender, identity and sexuality. If this helps society talk about these issues then great. if it helps those dealing with their own issues then great. I don't see a huge negative impact and certainly don't see how deleting this information in the article helps at all. I would also ask a heartfelt why the need to wipe it out? It's one thing to say this needs to be sourced better and add citation tags, it's another to wipe out previous work. I feel WP is better served by helping newer editors do better - not cyber-slapping them for not throwing down a finished article. Benjiboi 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the previous version? It is essentially a long list of people who have come out as bisexual, and of media representations of bisexuality (which are already covered). These are asserted as "flashpoints" for the "trend", without proving that there was or is an actual trend. The article actually said that Mick Jagger, Lou Reed and David Bowie "renounced" their bisexuality as a result of the discovery of HIV, without any sources for that statement. It refers to various celebrities as having "fueled bisexual chic", without providing any evidence for any such cultural trend. There are many statements that start with "Perhaps this is why..." or "Some think that...", and others that just skip the hypothesizing, and state ill-cited reasoning as fact.

I think that people interested in this should look at the beginnings of this article. This version is the original version of the article, and this version is the result after a very similar IP (I assume it's the same person) worked on the article for a few days. The basic premise of the article has not changed since 2005, nor has its factuality been challenged.

If "bisexual chic" really is more than just a catch phrase, and in fact is the appropriate term that is representative of a cultural movement, then all we need are sources. If not, then perhaps content of this article could go to Cultural acceptability of bisexuality in Western culture or some such. The main problem I have is starting with the phrase "bisexual chic" and writing about history in the context of a potentially nonexistent social movement. Joie de Vivre 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Some resources

I'm recording the latest version in case it too is deleted. Benjiboi 03:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bisexual chic is a phrase used extensively to describe two facets of bisexuality. One facet is emerging interest in and focus on bisexuality with an acceptance greater than in the past usually associated with a high profile person or mention in popular culture media. The other main facet is a faddish attention to bisexuality limited in ability to give real content and context to bisexual orientations or a truer, fuller understanding of bisexuality issues.

The phrase came into prominence in the 1970s on the tail end of the hippie movement which extolled free sex and free love and ushered in the emergence of glam rock and British artists like Elton John and David Bowie who some say his creation of the persona Ziggy Stardust was the founder of bisexual chic. A media-generated. “wave” took place focusing “on "bisexual chic" in the club scene and among celebrities such as Elton John, David Bowie and Patti Smith” At the same time bisexual groups formed in several large US cities signaling the birth of the modern Bisexual Civil Rights and Liberation Movement.

The phrase can be used negatively to imply someone is only pretending to be bisexual because it’s fashionable at the moment and, alternatively, can be used positively to assert that someone is free of taboos, experimental, in touch with both male and female aspects of themselves, and therefore potentially a better lover and/or a better person.

Members of the bisexual community, although usually in favor of bisexual visibility, see “bisexual chic” as an informal form of bisexual visibility that can be helpful but glosses over issues of sexual health and orientation as well as self-determination and identity politics.

Don't worry, I am not going to delete willy-nilly. I considered this more of a WP:BOLD maneuver, considering that I alerted everyone in the community of what I had done and asked for help and feedback. I like that your version of the article focuses on the phrase and its usage, rather than a history lesson through the lens of "bisexual chic". I am thinking that the redlinked article I suggested above might be a good way to incorporate the material from the old version. What do you think? Joie de Vivre 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what is the redlinked article is? Benjiboi 18:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cultural acceptability of bisexuality in Western culture, at the bottom of the section above this one. Joie de Vivre 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the title but it would seem to go better in the Bisexual article under Popular Culture or mainstream acceptance or visibility.Benjiboi 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly attached to the title, I was curious if you thought that in the void of not describing it as "bisexual chic" that it should be described elsewhere. I will check out the places you mentioned. Joie de Vivre 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I made some changes to the version you wrote. What do you think of the changes? Joie de Vivre 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Most seem fine, I've made a few more and removed "more recognizable" as I'm not sure that true and it may be impossible to prove. it's also not needed. Benjiboi 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the usage of the phrase is definitely negative or positive or that when someone means it in one sense is automatically negative. That's why I put the "can be" there. At this point i need to get back to my other work but good luck! Benjiboi 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just popping in to say I think this is a much better article now, even if I think the (unreferenced) content regarding "waves" of bisexuality was accurate. Congrats all those who worked on it. DevAlt 19:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gutted

What was the reason for simply gutting this article, rather than trying to make it better? 69.247.134.2 17:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sources, POV material. See version linked at top of section titled NPOV on this page . Joie de Vivre ^T 06:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)