Talk:Gay/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

The historical truth of love and marriage

Cao Jing is a Chinese scholar and his On the Theory about the Belief of Love says that the true nature of marriage is a mechanism which controls the relationship between men and women, and marriage has no necessary relation with love, life, family and children. It also holds that marriage belongs to the controlling ethics and love belongs to the voluntary ethics. In ancient times, almost all the people in the world had arranged marriage and it emphasized that the ethics of marriage (controlling ethics) dominated all things about the relationship between men and women. For a long time, the ethics of love were removed under the influence of ancient ethics and became that “love is a preparation for marriage”. The logic is that love is a preparing process and sanctity can’t be got until the marriage. Actually love can produce sanctity itself if you wish. You can find that there are many descriptions about arranged marriage and no description about premarital love when you see the ancient ethics and Christian “Bible”. Arranged marriage happened in all the ancient Christians and later it had changed into the idea that “love is a preparation for marriage”. This idea had influenced the whole world, but it did not admit that love can produce sanctity and it also thought that love is just a selection process. Today the so-called marriage oath is actually the love oath which can be made before marriage, and sanctity can be produced similarly. If the true nature of marriage is about control, then the arranged marriage is perhaps the true face of marriage. Most of the control force had been weakened when arranged marriage obliterated. However, this phrase “arranged marriage” was invented by the modern people while the ancient people may think the marriage was naturally to be arranged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbfbbfbbf115 (talk • contribs)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RudolfRed (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about the word "Gay". What edit are you requesting? Your comment seems more relevant to the article on marriage. Paul B (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Humm. It seems he already thought of that Special:Contributions/Bbfbbfbbf115. Paul B (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, The above article is written by myself.The above article is probably the meaning of the entire article.I hope the above article incorporated into the entry.You need to copyrights proof?Kind of how?I have the copyright certificate of the Chinese government, the other part is the e-mail time to prove.I have throughout this article, there is a lot of evidence, as well as a philosophical discourse.Hope my translation allows you to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbfbbfbbf115 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are saying that you are "Chinese scholar" Cao Jin, then you need to provide a reference for the published article and indicate how it is relevant to the topic of this page on the word "gay". Paul B (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is not published in a journal.I'm on the Wikipedia encyclopedia http://baike.baidu.com/view/8496.htm.In my view that homosexuality is the same kind of love.Love was loyal; produce sanctity; produce righteousness.Marriage is not a strict sense of marriage.This millennium misleading.Even, I hope that based on my theory, the creation of a love-faith registration agency.The service of humankind, as long as they are willing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbfbbfbbf115 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Bbfbbfbbf115, first of all, thanks for following up and explaining. Please understand that Wikipedia articles are based on verifiable information published by reliable sources; personal theories, no matter how reasonable, are never acceptable as the basis of article content. Rivertorch (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Chinese encyclopedia website, are generally accepted theory.I hope that more people will see this theory.For gay discrimination from religious and traditional ideas.In my opinion for gay.How do you think! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbfbbfbbf115 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Homosexual Traits

72.28.221.97 (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person...

or trans-gender characturistics of individuals or groups, based upon a community's or an observer's (subjective) stereotyping of male and female roles.

By the end of the 20th century, the word "gay" was recommended by major LGBT groups and style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex...

to combat long-standing derogatory lables.

OUT At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. In the Anglosphere... OUT

Afterwards, the term emulsified into describing someone's (or something's) deviation from the norm.

72.28.221.97 (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Hope I Did This Right,

72.28.221.97 (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I admit I'm not 100% sure what you're proposing be done. "Gay" does not generally refer to transgender characteristics. The verb "emulsify" has highly specific meanings that don't lend themselves to metaphoric use in encyclopedia articles. Rivertorch (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Not 100% sure what the IP is proposing either. But as for the term gay in relation to transgender characteristics, I think that the IP means how the public generally thinks of transgender people as gay. Flyer22 (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"schwul"

In German, "schwul" refers only to same-sex relationships of two men. The term is not used for same-sex relationships of two women. In contrast to "schwul", the corresponding term for female same-sex relationships ("lesbisch") does not have a pejorative connotation (if not used in the context of very tough women who are sometimes described as Kampflesbe). 134.155.36.48 (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What change are you proposing be made to the article? Please keep in mind that the current wording is sourced. Rivertorch (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important (and actually quite interesting) that in the German language, the pejorative connotation refers only to male homosexuality. I would propose adding something like: "The term schwul only refers to male homosexuality. The corresponding term for female homosexuality (lesbisch) does not have a similar pejorative connotation." As a source, you can take any dictionary. No one in Germany would ever use the word schwul for lesbians. 134.155.36.48 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. If you can provide a link to the relevant entry or entries at a dictionary or other source, that would be helpful. (I can look around a bit, but I'm guessing you already know where to look.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Temporal bias

When we say it 'primarily refers to' homosexuality, isn't that viewing the term through a biased lens that overly values present day and not historical usage?

We overlook classic phrases like Gay Nineties in so emphasizing this, for example. Ranze (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Note the present tense in the phrase "primarily refers to". Rivertorch (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2013

In the "Sexual orientation, identity, behavior" section, fourth paragraph from the top, second sentence in the paragraph, can someone please edit "engaging in homosexual sex" to "engaging in same-sex sexual encounters"? I can not do so because of the semi-protected status of the article. First of all, it is a more inclusive and accurate term. Second, the phrase "same-sex sexual encounters" was used in the sentence above, so it would make the terminology of the article more internally consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mricha711 (talk • contribs)

I ended up making extensive revisions to the entire paragraph, which I found a bit wordy and potentially confusing. I'm closing your edit request but am curious to know if you're okay with my changes. Feel free to reopen the request if you'd like another editor to take a look. Rivertorch (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The changes are fine to me. Mricha711, I do point out, though, that "homosexual sex" does not have to represent the participants' sexual orientations; it can simply represent the behavior (being same-sex sexual behavior). Because of that, I don't view the wording as restrictive. Flyer22 (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

there is a wrong statement above.

The Term "gay", never meant happy or cheerful. People just believe that because the wording is close. The term gay actually ahs always had a sexual connotation, whether or not with someone with the game gender.

http://www.stumblerz.com/how-did-the-word-gay-come-to-mean-homosexual/

This gives a good definition for the word gay from the oxford english dictionary in 1637. Below the world "immorality" from 1637 is used and correct, but people need to know that the "happy and cheerful" was a misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanifer (talk • contribs) 02:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The page you link, while interesting, provides a somewhat oversimplified gloss on the history of the word. It's also a blog and an unreliable source for our purposes. In any event, I imagine the many thousands (millions?) of people who did indeed use the word to mean "happy" or "cheerful" over many years would be quite surprised to learn there were sexual connotations to their usage! It is absolutely true that the word has a complex history and that it has, at various periods and in various contexts, carried a sexual connotation. Perhaps that could be expanded upon in the article, with appropriate sourcing. Rivertorch (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Seanifer, the source you cited doesn't state that gay never meant happy or cheerful. It states, "It really didn’t just mean 'happy' and 'lighthearted' even from way before." It's stating that it never only meant happy or cheerful, and that it always had a sexual connotation to it. But like Rivertorch stated, it's not a reliable source for that information and is not a reliable source at all by Wikipedia standards. Many reliable sources state that one of the definitions of gay is happy, and that "happy" is what the term originally meant. We'd need a reliable source (by Wikipedia standards) to support what the source you cited states...before adding such information to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And you will never convince old farts like me that it didn't mean happy and cheerful earlier last century. I was there. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"Don we now our gay apparel / Fa-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la"? Do you mean it's just about bright-colored clothes and Nothing More? Rivertorch (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit

Toward the end of this New York Times piece, there's a paragraph that notes that NYPD officers are told to use the term gay instead of homosexual. Perhaps we could find some other notable examples of institutions that have this as an instruction, and give a brief list of them after the sentence on clinical connotations? Significant counterexamples could be listed, too... and maybe also a note on some conservative groups' preference of homosexual, à la Tyson Homosexual? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Bringing Up Baby

I may be rehashing an old topic here, but even though it is referenced to one person's opinion on the internet I question whether the term gay as used in this movie was intended to have homosexual connotations. Firstly, its use is easily explained away by its original meaning as "flamboyant". Secondly, it confuses homosexuality with transvestitism. Thirdly, just because a reference is from a '.edu' site does not necessarily make it a scholarly source.

For some reason there are people who seem to look far back into the past for affirmation of the term's modern usage in a sort of neoclassical spirit. However, I personally don't believe that this can be considered a "confirmed" sighting/citing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.72.120 (talk • contribs)

In essence I agree with you that these attempts to identify the "homosexual" meaning in such instance just tends to confuse the issue. However, this scene is often mentioned in this context and the article as it stands does not say that the word is used to mean homosexual. And, yes, it has been discussed before [1]. Paul B (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Gay article vs. Lesbian article?

There's an extensive article focusing exclusively in lesbians. Why there's not an equivalent article for male homosexuals? This one seems too short and narrow-themed to be the equivalent. Also "gay" is used most of the time to refer exclusively to male homosexuals, not lesbians, but of course, the photo of the article had to be of two women kissing, and not two men...Seems as the Wikipedia has double standards or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.22.72.120 (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your question is an interesting one. Does anyone think we should have a article for Gay man (currently a redirect to Gay)? Feel free to propose a different image. Rivertorch (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's really a question for this article. Of course the word 'gay' is used of lesbians too [2] [3], even thouigh there is that odd paradox that the stock phrase "gay and lesbian" would imply otherwise. Just looking at the categories Category:Male homosexuality and Category:Gay men, there does not seem to be such an article. But it should be raised on the talk page of homosexuality, since this article is about a word. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I know that the word "gay" is sometimes used for women, but most of the time is applied only to men (in Spanish, for example, nobody would use "gay" to refer to a woman). The acronym LGTB makes also clear that lesbians are a separate group from gays. It's really strange that there's not a male counterpart for the "Lesbian" article, following the same template (i.e. history, demographics, media). Again, there seems to be an entire article about "Lesbian erotica", but no article about "Gay erotica" (double standards again). As for the photo, I don't think is bad itself. But there shoul be a male example as well. I get the impression that for too many people the image of two men kissing is somehow more repulsive and unacceptable than two women kissing. 95.22.72.120 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)

There are two things to keep in mind. Lesbian activism has had to address issues of sexism and misogyny in addition to issues addressed by the larger gay rights movement, and so has taken a somewhat different course. Also, the Lesbian identity arose as part of the feminist second wave, which emphasized the idea of women supporting and fighting for other women and so tended towards separatism. While "gay" encompasses male, female and intersex, "Lesbian" is historically, culturally and politically distinct. It makes sense that there would be a separate article for the Lesbian identity, in the same way that there are articles for other distinct sub-sets of the larger gay identity. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

IP, it seems that this comes down to the fact that there is no term that refers exclusively to male homosexuality, other than terms such as men who have sex with men, perhaps terms used by those of non-Western cultures, slang terms, and pejorative terms. Though emphasis is often given to gay referring to gay men, many people, as we know, use gay to refer to lesbian women as well. Not to mention, the other ways that the term gay is used (often with regard to homosexuality in general, such as same-sex sexual activity without exclusivity of sexual attraction). By contrast, lesbian exclusively refers to same-sex romantic and/or sexual attraction/activity between women (whether they identify as being exclusively romantically and/or sexually attracted to women or not) and even to a political identity (part of what TechBear touched on above). That stated, you are correct that Wikipedia can have an article specifically dedicated to the topic of Gay man, since the topic is notable (WP:Notability). You are also correct that people are generally more comfortable with female homosexuality than with male homosexuality. Note that both of these aspects (the gay vs. lesbian and picture aspects) have been addressed at this talk page before: see Talk:Gay/Archive 2#Male homosexuality and Talk:Gay/Archive 2#Edit request on 21 October 2012. The gay vs. lesbian aspect has also probably been addressed one or more other times at this talk page. I'm not sure if you participated in that latter discussion under a different username (registered or IP). I'm also not sure why the archivebot added those discussions to Archive 2; they should be in one of the latter archives.

Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your IP username for your second comment above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

However, the article about "Lesbian" doesn't refer exclusively to the modern identity of lesbianism, with its typical subculture and political activity. It's a general article about female homosexuality that covers periods of time and cultures in which neither the label "lesbian" nor the identity existed. Thus I think there should be a counterpart about male homosexuality, without using the word "gay", which would be anachronic when speaking, for example, of Ancient Greece. Even if this article in particular is left for the modern gay identity, encompassing lesbians and transexuals as well, it's just fair that there's a general article covering male homosexuality. I don't know if there's some way to make a public request to write it, though, because the subject is too heavy. I don't think I've got enough knowledge about the theme to write it myself. But I didn't know that this issue had been adressed already. I didn't participate in the previous discussion, but it seems that nobody took care then, since the issue remains the same.95.22.72.120 (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Gay would have to be used at some point in an article titled Male homosexuality, however, to cover some modern aspects of the topic. And as you can see, this topic (creating a male homosexuality article) is not actually discussed at "Talk:Gay/Archive 2#Male homosexuality"; it was a suggestion by one editor, and then agreement from a different editor. As for publicly requesting creation of an article, besides doing so here at this talk page, the official place to do that is at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE: The aforementioned archived discussions I pointed to above are now located at Talk:Gay/Archive 5#Male homosexuality and Talk:Gay/Archive 5#Edit request on 21 October 2012; this is because I recently organized the archives for this article, considering that they were very much out of order and somewhat defeated the purpose of locating past discussions (for example, 2014 and 2015 content mixed in with content from several years ago). So while the archives generally should not be edited, it was necessary in this case. I did not alter any past post, as is easily clear by checking my reorganization of the archives by looking at the edit histories. Flyer22 (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Gay community vs. LGBT community section

I'm not sure how appropriate it is to have this little paragraph at the bottom of that section:

"Some still disregard those developments and just use gay, or gay community as synonyms for LGBT community. It causes offence, and possibly harm to those of the minorities whose issues are not male, or of sexual orientation, and may be heterosexual, to be erased in that manner. Proper usage would be when the speaker is referring only to homosexual men."

This isn't sourced and reads like someone editorializing. If this issue is a matter of debate, as the section seems to suggest it is, I don't think its Wikipedia's job to choose a correct side and state it as fact. Something like "it causes offence to many who believe that the proper usage would be... etc", but unless there's a source for that I'm still not sure it belongs here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadshell (talk • contribs) 23:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have removed that paragraph. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

A question

Something that might be worth adding to the article. For background, I'm approaching this from the point of public health (specifically HIV/AIDS epidemiology) where the gay community has been a partner in dealing with an epidemic that has disproportionately affected men in the United States. Specifically, I'm reading a bit about issues of race in men who have sex with men but do not identify as gay - there are discussions about being "on the down low", where this article suggests that gay and the gay community are essentially white constructs where black men may not be welcomed and may not be interested. How much of a white-and-western bias (for lack of a better word) is there in the gay community? Certainly something to consider addressing in the article. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There's some relevant content in Racism in the LGBT community that may interest you. Rivertorch (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears to confirm what I'm seeing elsewhere. Should the fact that "Gay" is somewhat race-specific be noted in this article, and perhaps a section added discussing the equivalence (or lack thereof) in other racial and cultural groups? 71.231.186.92 (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

My sense of it is that we haven't identified enough sources to justify suggesting that in the article. It's quite a complex topic, with myriad factors (e.g., age, socioeconomic class, geographic location) playing a role, so it's difficult to make valid generalizations. I'd frankly be afraid of inadvertently introducing subtle synthesis. My two cents, anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm writing a paper on pareto distribution and HIV and MSM, so unsurprisingly I'm coming across some sources that may be useful for supporting a less than ORiginal addition to the article. Regardless of how I'd love to get distracted, I have to actually write the paper first instead of this article (can't edit it, but I can propose text here and hopefully someone will add/edit/ridicule). 71.231.186.92 (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do propose text. I don't think anyone will ridicule it. If they do, I'll give them the evil eye. Rivertorch (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Earliest public explicit use of "gay" as "homosexual" that I can find

It predates your cite to the Kinks' "David Watts" and is clear, not (as in "DW") ambiguous:

"How the preacher -- how's Jimmy -- did he go back to school? No kidding! I thought he was gay!" -- from "Whatshername", by Paul Stookey, on "Album 1700", released by Peter Paul & Mary in March 1967. 24.44.252.192 (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)captcrisis

Notability & Original Research

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed.--The Military Expert 00:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMilitaryExpert (talk • contribs)

Do read WP:Notability. To suggest that the topic of gay is non-notable is absurd. As for WP:Original research; read that as well; something in an article being unsourced does not make it WP:Original research. As you know, I already reverted you on a different matter with regard to this article. I'll leave it up to someone else to revert you on this, this and this. Such tags do not go on the talk page, by the way. Also, it would be best that you come up with your own statements instead of copying the statements from the tags you placed on this article. Do familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines if you plan to continue editing this site, and remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, and have removed the tags from the article. Notability is well established, and if you think a particular part of the content is unsourced OR, you can place a {{cn}} tag beside it, but don't blanket condemn the whole article before you discuss anything here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Good call. No article should be tagged in that way without an accompanying explanation promptly appearing on the talk page (and boilerplate doesn't fit the bill). Anyone questioning the notability of this topic is either unaware of what notability means or is simply trolling; I prefer to assume the former. Rivertorch (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Can we put a picture into this article in the top right? When you search gay in google, the picture is someone who got beat up. Gradsk8rdude (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

We can't control what Google displays (for the record, I don't get a picture). The rainbow flag presently in the infobox is a good lead picture for the topic. Can you think of another symbol which we could place above the infobox? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Replace gay bar picture?

The current picture is of a non-notable establishment which does not provide any useful info to the reader (take away the label and it's a picture of a nondescript building). What do other editors think about replacing it with a picture of a notable bar - one that's listed in Gay bar? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the picture's significance lies in the fact that it does look like any other bar anywhere. Isn't that a good thing? HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Neil is setting the bar too high. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.) There's always this one, which also looks like any other bar but isn't really. Frankly, I'm not sure that either the bar image or the kissing women image add much value to the article, other than to break up the gray text. I might be wrong. Rivertorch (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The New Penny or Phase 1 (bar) look like any other bar. Better than the random picture we have now I think but hey, that's just my opinion on the bar, tendered for your feedback. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh. It seems we both have a pour sense of humor. Seriously, it seems a little stereotypical to depict a bar when there are only two photos illustrating the article. It could be worse, I suppose—at least it's not a bathhouse. (And let's not go there with the wordplay....) How about a crowd shot of a Pride event? Rivertorch (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Gay as a pejorative term

In the second lede paragraph, an alternate (perjorative) definition of "gay" is presented and this, in total, is almost as long as the primary definition. While there is no doubt that "that's so gay" is sometimes used as a perjorative, but this is, by far, a diminutive definition. In any case, this is discussed in the body of the article under the heading Generalized pejorative use. It should further be noted that, in that section, it is noted that many view the use of gay as a perjorative, as in it's s gay, is homophobic. For this reason alone, it is inadvisable to include in the lede section of this page.
Enquire (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It summarizes a significant part of the article, per WP:Lead. Flyer22 (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Hatnotes or changes to the lede can be discussed separately. Dekimasuよ! 07:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Gay → Gay (terminology) – My understanding is that the primary use of "Gay" to refer to Homosexuality, not to refer to the word "Gay" itself. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think there some misunderstanding of my proposal. I'm proposing we move this to "Gay (terminology)" so that we can redirect "gay" to Homosexuality. This article is not about gay people (the Homosexuality article is), this article is about the English word "gay" itself. IMO if a reader looks up "gay", it is far more likely he is trying to find the article about gay people then it is that he is trying the find the article about the word "gay", so (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) that's where we should send him. That is the only reason I think this page should be moved.

For readers who really were looking for the article about the word "gay", a hatnote on the Homosexuality article can direct them to this article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose (I think). Maybe I'm missing something, but the article is about the word and its usage. What would be accomplished by moving it? Rivertorch (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

So a reader who looks up "Gay" will arrive at what the article he's most likely trying to find (the article about Homosexulity), rather then an article it's much less likely he's trying to find (the article about the word "gay"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 08:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, definitely oppose. "Gay" is primarily an adjective; it is a synonym for homosexual (adj.), not "homosexuality" (n.). Gayness (not a commonly used word) currently redirects to Gay, and I could see some sense in pointing it to Homosexuality instead. Rivertorch (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point. You haven't quite convinced me, but I see the opposers point of view now. Previously, I was a little perplexed by the opposes. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, the first line of the article says: "Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual". It is therefore highly unlikely that a person looking up "gay" will have any trouble finding the article on homosexuality, if that is what they are looking for. bd2412 T 13:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

My concern isn't that people would trouble finding the article on homosexuality. My concern is that this article deviates from the regular practice; regular practice is to redirect a term to its primary topic (homosexuality in this case) and link to secondary topics (the word "gay" in this case) in hatnotes. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no such "regular practice". The primary topic of this article is word-use, not homosexuality. Redirecting "gay" to "homosexuality" would just have the effect of taking people away from the primary topic of the article. If people want to look up homosexuality, they will not type "gay" - gay people, gay men, gays, even. All these redirects, as it happens, point to different articles. A case could be made for changing the redirect of gays. Paul B (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I meant by "primary topic". I meant the it in the sense of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, in this case for the title "gay" (homosexuality IMO), not the topic of this article (which is or course the term itself). I disagree that people wouldn't type "gay" to look up homosexuality, but I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Paul, I do think that a lot of people, likely the vast majority, who are looking for an article on homosexuality come to this article first; some even come to this article looking specifically for an article on male homosexuality, as this and this discussion show. Typing in gay is quicker and this article primarily focuses on the homosexuality aspect of the term because that is the primary meaning of the term, a fact that the lead currently notes. That stated, I agree with you that the primary topic of this article is word-use. The fact that the word-use is primarily about homosexuality does not make that any less true. I'm with BD2412, who is very experienced with WP:Disambiguation and commonly contributes to that guideline (which WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a part of), on not seeing a clear need to change this article's title to Gay (terminology). Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the topic of this article is the term "gay" itself, nobody disputes that. As for people looking for homosexuality and male homosexuality, we already have the hatnote (and lead sentence) pointing to homosexuality, and we could solve the male homosexuality issue by adding male homosexuality to the hatnote. Any objections? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Read that second discussion I linked to for why. The Male homosexuality redirect is currently flawed. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It may be that people type "gay" looking for "homosexual", though I doubt it (I wouldn't know how to prove it one way or the other). After all, the "gay = rubbish" usage is also now common. My main problem is that if the name is changed, what happens to "gay"? Either it redirects here, making the name change pointless, or it redirects to "homosexuality", which, in effect, hides the article from view. I don't think that's the right approach, and article titles should be straightforward. Paul B (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As for what happens to "gay", I meant my proposal to imply that it would be redirected to "homosexual"; readers who who were looking for Gay (terminology) could go there via hatnote.

As for the Male homosexuality hatnote, that sounds like a problem with the "male homosexuality" redirect, and not the proposed hatnote. If there's a better target, then of course the redirect should be retargeted there, but the issue of what the best target is is a different issue then the hatnote. It's the hatnote's job to point readers who come here looking for male homosexuality to the male homosexuality article, on in the absence of such an article the male homosexuality {{R with potential}}. The target may at the moment be less then ideal, but that's no reason not to link to the redirect; surly that less then ideal target is better then nothing. Besides that's just a temporary condition, it will be fixed as soon as the redirect is retargeted, and we can't debate the appropriate target over hatnotes, that's wp:local consensus. The debate needs to be limited to where to target the redirect itself, it can't come up whenever someone links to it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Paul, do you think that most people who type gay are looking for information about the term gay instead of information about homosexuality? If so, I can't agree with that. I think it's clear that, since the term gay primarily refers to homosexuality, people are most likely going to be looking for the topic of homosexuality when they type gay. Not for its past primary meaning of "happy or carefree," not for its meaning of "that's stupid" or "that's rubbish." People who want information about something being stupid or rubbish are surely far more likely to Google those terms instead of the word gay. This article and the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources show that the term gay most commonly refers to homosexuality. People are also much more likely to use the word gay than homosexual when referring to the fact that a person is homosexual. Not to mention the style guides that advise using the word gay as a noun instead of homosexual as a noun when it comes to referring to a person who is homosexual.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman, it barely makes any sense to me to tell readers to click on that Male homosexuality redirect for information about male homosexuality, when the Homosexuality article, which is already linked in the hatnote and in the lead, deals with the topic of male homosexuality far better than what the redirect takes readers to. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"People who want information about something being stupid or rubbish are surely far more likely to Google those terms instead of the word gay.". That statement indicates that you completely misunderstand what I said. I very doubt anyone ever types in any word seeking "information about something being stupid or rubbish". What "information" would that be? I think they type in words with a variety of motives, and that wondering why the word "gay" has come to mean "stupid or rubbish" is likely to be one of them. It's like other words that have their own articles in that respect. It's the complexity of the meanings that legitimate the articles. We wouldn't expect nigger to redirect to "African" or "black person", not just because it happens to be pejorative (which gay usually isn't), but because its history of use is the point of the article. Paul B (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)About the hatnote, you might have a point; I would suggest sending the redirect to WP:RFD. If you agree with me that people are most likely going to be looking for homosexuality when they type gay, why do you oppose moving this? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Paul, I understood what you stated; for example, you stated, "It may be that people type 'gay' looking for 'homosexual', though I doubt it." I simply disagree with that statement, and offered examples to explain why. I disagree with the "may be" part and the notion of doubt, since I don't see how it can be doubted that people type the word gay looking for "homosexual" (whether about the term homosexual or the topic of homosexuality), especially since we get examples of people looking for such when they come to this article and since we have a hatnote to direct them to the Homosexuality article. But, like I noted, I understand your objection to moving this article to Gay (terminology).

Emmette Hernandez Coleman, I already explained above; I can't be clearer than that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - the article is clear that it is about usages of the word. Paul B (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's saying it isn't, my concern (see my response to BD2412) has nothing to do with that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Your concern, IMO, is wholly misplaced. Paul B (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons stated above. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose if there is content missing about terminology usage then address that by using sources and adding content. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's saying there is missing content about terminology usage, and even if there were that has nothing to do with my concern. The topic of this article it the word "gay" itself, and adding content about terminology usage wouldn't change that, if that's what you mean. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I see no benefit to any move at this time, as noted by others. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The terms "homosexual" and "gay", although have a similar meaning, have not the same result. GLAAD explains it better. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The link says "Please use "gay" or "lesbian" to describe people attracted to members of the same sex." and go's on to explain how it considers the term "homosexual" offensive. Regardless of whatever term we should use, it doesn't change that our article about people attracted to members of the same sex is Homosexuality, not gay (this article is about the word "gay" itself). The issue here is weather a reader who looks up "gay" should arrive at the article about the word "gay", or weather he should arrive at the article about people attracted to members of the same sex (regardless of whatever that article is called). If you think the article about people attracted to members of the same sex should have a title other then "Homosexuality", take that up at Talk:Homosexuality. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

E.H.C., your arguments haven't been persuasive, and I'd say we're entering WP:SNOW territory. Gay must not redirect to homosexuality because the words are not synonyms; as already noted, the latter is a noun and the former is (usually) an adjective. Visitors looking for information on the word "gay" would find homosexuality no help, and a hatnote there linking to Gay (terminology) would be awkward and inappropriate. On the other hand, visitors arriving at Gay but looking for information on the concept of homosexuality are immediately presented with an entirely logical hatnote pointing them in the right direction. The current setup may fall afoul of your interpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but it works very well and really doesn't need fixing. Rivertorch (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Till now I was treating this as a case where "the fate of the snowball may not be immediately obvious and predictable until it has actually been placed in the infernal conditions", mostly because many of the oppose votes were strawmen (such as missing usages of the word, or people having trouble finding the homosexuality article). Agreed, "Homosexuality" is a noun and "Gay" an adjective, and that's by far the strongest argument against moving this (except perhaps Flyer22's, but I don't really understand it so I can't say how strong it is). There's nothing to defuse here; I'm OK with losing this, this isn't some critical thing that truly needs to be fixed (it should be fixed IMO, but it doesn't need to be). I'd really rather lose this on the bases of things like the the adjective argument and not strawmen tough (not that the strawmen were intentional, it's not that difficult to accidentally make one). I've probably given this more time and effort than I would give most articles, but the strawmen aside, that's simply because high-profile articles/search terms such as this deserve quite a bit of time and effort so they can be as good as they can be, considering the shear number of readers who will see them. At this point I would tend to agree that we seem to be bordering true SNOW territory, rather then "well-aimed snowball" territory, it is almost by definition difficult too tell the difference tough.

As for you're hathote argument tough, you might have a point. We could say "Gay redirects here, this article is about Homosexuality. For the article about the English word "gay" itself, see Gay (terminology)", but a such a hatnote might not be enough for some readers to understand the difference between an article about a word, and an article about the concept a word represents. It's probably clearer when we have a lead sentence that clearly explains that an article is about a word. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

As a linguist, I've been interested lately in the persistence--especially in the media--of the use of gay as a synonym for gay and lesbian, which it is not. The proof of this is that you can't use lesbian as a synonym for gay. I believe this persistence is due to a continuing effort by lesbians to benefit from the greater overall weight of the gay male experience. In general lesbians seem to suffer from a difficulty in drawing attention to themselves and being taken seriously which is never the case with gay males.Godofredo29 (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

German equivalent for gay

The German equivalent for gay is schwul, this is right but it does not origin in schwuel but in schwül, the ü is important! --U-Bahnfreund (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@U-Bahnfreund: And one of the conventions for rendering the u with the umlaut in English is the ue construction. (Consider the song title "Danke Schoen" and its umlaut-o.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I know, but what about Rügen? That is with the Umlaut --U-Bahnfreund (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Unicode support for the Latin-1 character range is now sufficiently universal that I think we can use the umlaut without fear of confusion. -- The Anome (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Another instance of early of public use for sexual orientation

The 1941 Cole Porter musical "Let's Face It", contains a song called "Farming". The premise of the song was poking fun at the celebrities trend to buy houses away from city and refer to them as their "farm" (even though they knew nothing about farming). One of the lines Porter wrote was:

"Don't inquire of Georgie Raft, Why his cow has never calfed, Georgie's bull is beautiful, but he's gay!"

Jaimelobo (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Likely origin of the word is Greek.

The likely origin of the word is Greek. Gay, (< Gk: genos, gender + isos, like). A person who likes the same gender as them self; a person who smiles excessively at their same gender; either a womanly male, or a manly female; a homosexual. Research888 (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Research888: And your source? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The origin of the word "gay" has nothing to do with homosexuality, as that's not what it orginally meant. It from the French 'gai'. Paul B (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"MSM" - Men who have sex with men

May be a good idea to include the shorthand in health care for "men who have sex with men", because it includes both those who are homosexual who engage in MSM, but also heterosexuals who engage in MSM 182.255.99.214 (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Gay is broader than homosexual

Gay is used mostly commonly to denote any kind abnormal amount of reverse gender behaviors not just sexual attraction. A boy who is more feminine than normal is often called gay. Homosexuality is one common example of reverse gender behaviors but is not the only one. The "gay community" is a term used to describe all of the lgbtq subgroups which can include completely heterosexual people (the Q). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.131.31 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This is just assertion. provide sources. Paul B (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever points the IP is trying to get across, the article is clear enough in its broadness of the term gay, while still making clear the primary definition of the term. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I kind of suspected the people who locked the page were not interested in a serious article....Sources for people who have shown no same sex sexual behaviors that have been called gay.....the internet has about 1 trillion of them. It is the most common usage for the term. Gay is a slang term, it does not have a scientific definition it's definition is however it is used. No worries though, just trying to improve a very bad article but you don't seem interested. Let me ask you guys, what do you think people mean when they call an inanimate object or situation gay? They obviously are not witnessing any kind of sexual behavior.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.131.31 (talk • contribs)

The article addresses that gay can collectively refer to LGBT people. The LGBT article also covers the topic of LGBTQ (it redirects to the LGBT article). The article already addresses the term gay as slang, gay to mean stupid or ridiculous, gay in its other perjorative uses. So the only thing you can be complaining about in this section is that the article doesn't state that gay means "any kind abnormal amount of reverse gender behaviors not just sexual attraction. A boy who is more feminine than normal is often called gay." But we do have uses in the article that are clear on such matters; see the Shift to homosexual section. When "a boy who is more feminine than normal is often called gay," it is usually due to bigotry. The term sissy also covers the matter. And if you are only speaking of gender variance, then try the Gender variance article or the Queer article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Latest addition to the lead

With this edit, I reverted Concord hioz's addition to the lead, stating, "Not WP:Lead material. And that is a poor source. See WP:Reliable sources." Concord hioz re-added the addition to the lead, stating, "If good material is added and your complaint is that it doesn't belong in the lede, then you're harming the article by deleting it instead of moving it to the body. As for source, it is Social Security Administration data. That's as reliable as it gets!)." He also made a followup edit, stating, "For those who didn't bother to check the data source."

I did not simply revert Concord hioz because the content is not covered lower in the body; I reverted him because the content simply is not WP:Lead material whatsoever, and babynamewizard.com is not WP:Reliable source. I don't care what data babynamewizard.com is citing; babynamewizard.com is not a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I struck part of my post above because I just realized that Concord hioz re-added the material lower in the article instead of in the lead. But it still remains that babynamewizard.com is a poor source. Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I think a properly sourced passage on the changing fortunes of the name Gay (and perhaps Gaye) would be useful. "Baby names" is not a very good source. Paul B (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe that fact should be fact (not someone's interpretation of the facts)

In the very beginning of Gay, it states it means homosexual, but it in fact has not been changed as quoted by Webster dictionary even as I type, still means happy first, no offense to homosexuals across the globe, but this has nothing to do with what one believes, it merely means the facts, please keep facts - facts.

While the public has loosely translated gay to mean homosexual, it is not recognized as such by main 'educators' in our world, but rather a subtext instead,

this page is gravely misleading, and Wikipedia shame on you. please correct this to reflect reality. Gay in fact can be found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as its correct definition and this article is suggesting it no longer means such, when it does.

---

brian---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.121.20 (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone who is named Rayyan

Someone who is named Rayyan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C7:C000:5010:CABC:C8FF:FEC6:9CD6 (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Moved from my talkpage

What

Sorry but having sexual contact with another man is the practice of homosexuality by dictionary terms Thank you. Beyonder (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod

What you are trying to add is not in the citation provided. Please find another citation from a reliable source which makes the claim you are making. Otherwise it is your original research and it is not allowed into the article. Dr. K. 20:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Even on the Homosexuality Page it states what i have stated "sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender." Beyonder (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod

But you did not state that. You stated that the word gay was recommended by major LGBT groups and style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex or to have any sexual acts with another male.. Which is not the same. Plus as Bishonen told you it does not make grammatical sense. Also this particular sentence refers specifically to the recommendation of major LGBT groups and style guides so you cannot alter what they recommended because it is backed up by an RS and the RS does not have your addition. Don't confuse this recommendation with the definition of the word "gay". They are not the same thing. Dr. K. 20:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Old films for overview

Also worth a mention for the pre-homosexual pre-sexualized usage:

• 1930 Let Us Be Gay
• 1934 The Gay Divorcee

Helps to solidify this usage during the 30s. 64.228.90.179 (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

first explicit use of the term to mean "homosexual"

This predates all the examples in the article:

The song "Whatshername" by Paul Stookey of Peter Paul and Mary, recorded in late 1966, released in March 1967 on their "Album 1700", has this line:

"How's the 'preacher'? How's Don? Did he go back to school? No kidding! [laugh] I thought he was a fag!" 24.44.238.65 (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)captcrisis

That does not predate all the examples in the article. Did you read the History section? Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The examples in the article (pre-1967) are not explicit. The word could have been taken in more than one way. Paul Stookey's use of the word can't mean anything BUT homosexual. 24.44.238.65 (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)captcrisis

Your example also is implicit, not explicit, although I'd say the rest of the verse strongly suggests that you're right. Do you know of any secondary sources that discuss it? Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2016

118.212.237.10 (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Academic Research Dissertation and Articles in progress

Academic Misconduct and Dishonesty warranted me, Mickey Ferdynand, to notify the global community that I am working to update this with a truly hard working academic piece where field research and hard work cite and present the facts and logic, amongst others, such that Americans can have a true place to go for accurate and then some text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.223.186 (talk • contribs)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the word

I reverted Sandstein with this edit because this article is about the word. It is not about the concept of being gay. The Homosexuality article is about the concept. Because this article is about the word, the WP:Refers essay does not apply here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense.  Sandstein  09:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent revert

Junior5a, you recently reverted Collier09, with an edit summary that asserted that the edit was non-constructive editing. It wasn't. Be more careful with reverting in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyer22 Reborn, appreciated! Still not certain why the graf shouldn't be in the article Collier09 (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2017‎ (UTC)

Notice that Junior5a's page/account has been deleted. No longer in operation. Collier09 (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)‎

Collier09, Junior5a was recently active. Sometimes editors request to have their user page deleted, but remain active regardless.

On a side note: Make sure that you are indenting your talk page posts and are signing them with four tildes (not three). I indented your above posts and added the timestamps to them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks you for your help. Followed your instructions.Collier09 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted Figurefour44 with this edit for reasons that should be obvious. Figurefour44 talks about "invalid." His content removal was invalid, and I see that he's been reverted at other articles for such editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

What the heck is SAGE and why should Wikipedia care what they allow? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I immediately thought of SAGE Publications. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

I'm part of the lgbtq community and theres false info on this page about the lgbtq community i would like to change the date of this page. :) Adamwishington (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, we can't help unless you say exactly what change you are looking for. "I want to change something" is not specific; requests should be something like "please change X to Y". rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Should this page be put in Category:Happiness?

Isn't this article about the word (not the concept) in general, not just the homosexual meaning? Apparently, happy is the "wrong" meaning here, even though a good deal of the article is about that sense. I think it would be wrong to categorise it purely by the homosexual sense, rather than all meanings. Adam9007 (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. This article – as clearly stated in the opening sentence, demonstrated by the infobox, and elaborated on for pretty much the entirety of the article – is about the modern sense of the word relating to sexuality, and how it developed. It is not an article about an emotion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Nor is this article actually about homosexuality. It's about a word with multiple meanings (all of which are covered in the article). Adam9007 (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Aren't you the one who just argued that it wasn't about a concept? Then why are you trying to put it into a conceptual category? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles in that category which are not about a concept, such as World Happiness Council. Adam9007 (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Category:Same-sex sexuality is a conceptual category too. Adam9007 (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

If you consider (as I do) categories to be navigation aids for Wikipedia's readers, it's hard to imagine how placing this article in Category:Happiness is going to help anyone find anything they're looking for. The scope of the article is essentially the evolution of the word's meaning and usage, with a focus on its primary meaning. In that context, it discusses both earlier and recent usages, but they're not main topics of the article. Besides, do you see any articles about adjectives in the category? I don't. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 12:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentences re definition are plainly wrong.

   "Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual."

Nonsense. Consult any reputable dictionary. G.C.Merriam's online dictionary for example, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay gives this as the FOURTH definition.

   "The term was originally used to mean 'carefree', 'happy', or 'bright and showy'."

This implies that these senses are archaic which is an implicit lie. This is still the primary sense. Again, consult any reputable dictionary.

I think the idea here is to have an article about the use of the word "gay" in senses related to homosexuality. Then it should simply say so, instead of making false assertions about the English language. I'd fix this if it weren't locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That's the reason this page is locked, to prevent sweeping changes from people without reaching consensus. On your point, I disagree, wholeheartedly. Though the dictionary may list it first, that doesn't mean that it's the most common use colloquially. I think if you ask most people today in the English speaking world what first comes to mind when you say "GAY" you're going to hear something about homosexuality. In fact, Dictonary.com even discusses this. PureRED (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster, which I cited, is probably the most well regarded serious dictionary by any U.S. publisher. To pretend that the first definition it gives is not modern English usage is dishonest. Apparently even the site you cite, dictionary.com, gave the primary sense as "merry, lively" at least as recently as 2010. ( https://English.stackexchange.com/questions/2772/does-gay-still-include-the-meaning-merry ) although I'd scarcely regard it with equal respect. Anyone who believes that that senses related to "cheerful" are archaic and not a part of modern English, clearly derives their knowledge of English exclusively from either pop culture usage in their own intellectually limited clique or from some prescriptive rather than descriptive, agenda-driven notions of diction. As this article stands now it implies that senses related to homosexuality are the ONLY legitimate usages of the word. Locking in nonsense like that makes Wikipedia look silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The "nonsense" isn't being locked in, it's being prevented from being changed without establishing a consensus to change it.

I wouldn't argue that the "cheerful" definition is archaic, but I would agree with PureRED that in this day and age, at least in North America, it's no longer the way in which the word "gay" is most commonly used. I don't believe we can simply use the order in which the definitions appear in a dictionary, as that sounds like our own interpretation. Did you actually read the link provided, which states, in part, "The meaning “homosexual” for the word gay has become so prevalent that people hesitate to use the term in its original senses of “merry, lively” and “bright or showy.” DonIago (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to know whether this is trolling or simple misunderstanding, but I'll assume the latter. There's an old adage: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". While there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the article will be changed to suit the OP's liking, their arguments are wrong in almost every particular, so let's address them briefly before putting the topic to bed.

The unabridged Merriam-Webster, upon which the various abridged versions of M-W are based, was last updated more than half a century ago—and not to universal acclaim, to put it mildly. Its several newer, shorter derivatives tend to share the permissiveness (some would say sloppiness) of their progenitor. They do get updated, but not with any great consistency or speed. For instance, the M-W Learner's Dictionary, whose intended audience is non-native English speakers, does list "gay" in the everyday modern sense first, while the M-W Collegiate Dictionary does not. Perhaps the good editors over at M-W see no urgency when it comes to advising an audience of principally native English speakers, assuming (correctly, I think) that most of them haven't been living under a rock for the past fifty years. In any case, of eight major dictionaries with online portals, six list the first definition of "gay" to be the one matching the topic of this article. This includes American Heritage, which remains more cautious with its definitions than M-W.

Having said all that, I'm not quite credulous to believe that the OP actually is suggesting that the old definition of the word is actually in common usage in the 21st century. We encounter it in still-relevant old books and movies, but its usage in everyday writing (formal or informal) and speech is close to nil. Is that really up for debate? Perhaps the OP would like to suggest that Niceness be changed so that instead of redirecting to Kindness it redirects to Ignorance. That would honor the original meaning of the word, after all.

And having said that, I'll now say it's pretty much beside the point. Wikipedia's article titles aren't determined based on word definitions but rather on topic. Noting the former usage of the word and then quickly moving on, as the article does, is entirely appropriate, and the current wording appears to be accurate. In the absence of a specific, constructive suggestion for revised wording, I think we can consider this resolved. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Well said. This is a word article, but WP:WORDISSUBJECT makes clear the following: "As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." Also, the article is clear about the shift in terminology. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

"Did you actually read the link provided . . . showy."[sic] -DonIago I presume that's intended as a question, despite the punctuation. Yes, I did.

"It's hard to know whether this is trolling or simple misunderstanding . . ." -Rivertorch

It's hard to know whether this is a deliberate insult or simple inability to understand that these aren't the only alternatives.

"The unabridged Merriam-Webster, upon which the various abridged versions of M-W are based, was last updated more than half a century ago . . ."

You refer to to the 1961 edition of the Third New International, often called the MW3, which is quite disingenuous, since I specifically cited the online product.

Referring to other G & C Merriam dictionaries collectively as "the various abridged versions" is completely wrong, as even a casual perusal of the article Merriam-Webster here on Wikipedia will demonstrate. The online product is described by G & C Merriam as "the successor to . . . [the] Third New International Dictionary." ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/about-us/faq ) but was ORIGINALLY based, not on the 1961 MW3, but the 2003 11th Collegiate, which has been independent of the MW3, since the 9th edition in 1983.

Although originally based on the 2003 Collegiate, the online product is explicitly claimed to be "regularly updated" & the most current product. ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/about-us/faq )

"the old definition . . . usage in everyday writing (formal or informal) and speech is close to nil." In current published writing which is aimed at a wide audience, it has indeed become rare in any context where there is any possibility of misunderstanding (which if you think about it, you'll see is MOST contexts, and you'll see WHY any possible ambiguity is avoided), but even there it is still extant in conventional phrases where the meaning has no reasonably possible ambiguity, such as "Gay Paris" or "Gay Nineties". In conversational speech, I don't agree at all. It probably varies quite a bit by region, by age, and by educational level. Certainly I hear it often enough that it isn't remarkable or surprising. If most of your conversationalists are West Virginia high school students, YMMV. It may have escaped your attention, but the English language is not the exclusive possession of people under 50.

"Perhaps the OP would like to suggest that Niceness be changed so that instead of redirecting to Kindness it redirects to Ignorance." You think that bit of sarcasm is clever?!? It's merely sophomoric.

"In the absence of a specific, constructive suggestion for revised wording, I think we can consider this resolved." I indicated 2 possible alternatives fairly clearly I thought, but I'll make them explicit:

Preferably:

A. Change the first 2 sentences after the intro

from:

'Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual. The term was originally used to mean "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy".'

to:

'"Gay", in current English usage, is most often used to refer to a homosexual man or boy, or, more broadly, a homosexual of either sex, or qualities relating thereto. The original meaning of "cheerful" was the most prevalent sense until approximately the 1970s, but is now less common.'

This removes the false implication that the historically central meaning is extinct. It also makes clear that the statement is about the frequency of usage, eliminating the ambiguity inherent in the word "primary".

Or, as a poor second:

B- Change the lead sentence in the intro from:

"This article is about gay as an English-language term."

to:

"This article is about the word "gay" as used in senses pertaining to sexual orientation."

The homosexual sense is absolutely the primary sense today. Currently there is already consensus for that. If OP wants to provide evidence otherwise, I'd suggest crawling a text corpus or speech corpus for instances of the word and counting up how many times it's used in each sense. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You don't like the lead sentence. Well, it doesn't matter whether it's trolling or merely lack of critical thinking skills on display. There are innumerable places on the Internet where people preoccupied with this sort of thing will find themselves preaching to the choir. Wikipedia isn't one of them. We don't base article content on personal preferences, period. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"The homosexual sense is absolutely the primary sense today." -rʨanaɢ

The revision I suggested DOES NOT INDICATE OTHERWISE. I explicitly suggested changing two sentences. Nothing in the substantive sense of the sentence

"Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual."

would be changed. It would only be clarified by making two unstated assumptions explicit:

1. That the sentence applies to CURRENT usage in a fairly narrow sense, and not, for example, to documents published in 1990. Since the intro sentence, "This article is about gay as an English-language term," indicates no such limitation, and since, in a literate culture, older documents are very much "current" in a broader sense, this is an important point to make clear. Even the current and in-use editions of many TEXTBOOKS, not to mention less ephemeral types of literature, are older than that.

2. That "primary" was meant in the sense of prevalence. This is an unfortunately ambiguous word. Of the senses given in the definition here

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primary

the first three are applicable. Most of the people commenting here apparently interpret it as in sense 2, that of prevalence. My suggestion of

"is most often used"

merely makes this explicit. I wouldn't object to

"is almost always used"

as long as the very narrow temporocentric focus is made clear.

This is not mere pedantry; it is about clarity. When discussing the meanings of words, the word "primary" is not a term I would introduce, BECAUSE of its ambiguity, but when it IS used the first meanings that come to my mind are those of sense 1, historical primacy, for which I would prefer "older", and something like sense 3, for which I would prefer the term "central".

If I had realized right off the bat that sense 2, prevalence, was probably intended, I would have worded my OP, both body and title, quite differently. In light of that assumption, the first sentence after the intro ("Gay is a term that . . .") is not so much "wrong" as "unclear". Since there has been considerable response to it (indeed, heated & downright derogatory response), I won't go back and revise it, lest it make those responses seem utterly senseless.

The change I suggest in the second post-intro sentence,

'"The term was originally used to mean "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy".'

IS substantive with respect to what is implied, but not to what is explicit. If you think the implication that the sense of "cheerful" is extinct isn't intended, you shouldn't object to clarifying the sentence as my suggestion would. If, on the other hand, you think the implication is correct, then you should suggest a version that makes the implication explicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC) ___

References

External links modified

12 October 2017

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Gay. 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/20101023132924/http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Gay_-_Etymology/id/1419120 to http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Gay_-_Etymology/id/1419120 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) 00:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Gay as noun

The lead mentions the use of "gay" as an adjective, and as a noun. But the noun usage is inadequately explained, and probably should have an expanded description of adjectival and noun use in the Terminology section. In particular, the noun usage is unlike that of 'lesbian', and is highly skewed to the plural. Singular usage is rare now (unlike for 'lesbian') and sounds awkward: *"My math teacher is a gay;" (but contrast: "My prof is a lesbian.") Furthermore, plural usage of "gay" is limited to the indefinite plural, especially when paired with 'lesbians': ("Gays and lesbians did this-n-that..." or, "Some / A lot / Many / A number / of gays marched...", "Acceptance of gays in the military", etc. However the definite plural "gays" is rare (unlike "lesbians") and is not usually seen, e.g. *"Three gays were still on the dance floor..." (read: Three gay guys...), or, *"The board currently has two gays and three lesbians" (read: "two gay men, and three lesbians"). Mathglot (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

First gay joke on television found?

For any interested regular editor of this artcle: I was watching a 1966 episode of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. yesterday and at the very end there is a bit of humor involving the dual meaning of the word "gay" that could be the first gay joke on network television. As I write this, the article only gives examples found in films, so this could be a noteworthy discovery if any editor wants to add it. The scene goes like this: a guest starring actress (Ellen Willard) playing a Salvation Army officer type character named Priscilla Worth and ladies man/U.N.C.L.E. agent Napolean Solo are decorating a Christmas tree in a children's hospital ward. Previously during the episode he had been mildly flirting with her, as is his custom in every episode and female characters. She needs assistance placing garland near the top. Solo helps her, and the following dialogue occurs:

The Man From Uncle - "The Jingle Bells Affair" - Season 3 Episode 15, airdate December 23, 1966, scene 46:32 - 46:48
Priscilla: "Thank you."
Solo: "I wish it was mistletoe."
"Oh, Mr. Solo, you are a gay one, aren't you?"
(Solo, a little surprised, looks aside to see if anyone heard her.)
"Only, ah, on holidays."

The brief exchange is clearly intended as a joke involving emerging dual use meaning of the word. Here is a reference showing a photo from the scene and repeating the dialogue. There might be other references out there. I didn't check. I've never edited this article, so I'm tossing this out there. I enjoyed the episode with its holiday setting and footage of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. 5Q5 (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:IPCV, we'd need an independent source to have made note of this. DonIago (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Questioning a Gay male article again

Pyxis Solitary, regarding what you stated here, see what I stated in response. I pointed to the discussion seen at Talk:Gay/Archive 6#Gay article vs. Lesbian article?. Given what is stated there about there being no term that exclusively refers to male homosexuality, other than terms such as men who have sex with men, and perhaps terms used by those of non-Western cultures, slang terms, and pejorative terms, and given that the homosexuality literature is mostly about males when taking historical aspects into account, how do you propose we go about creating a Gay male article? I'm not opposed to creating one. I just think it should be done well, and that includes it not being too redundant to existing articles. It seems that it would mainly focus on gay male culture, but the gay male culture literature, at least what I have access to, is mostly about American gay male culture. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oy! Wikipedia is the only information-providing entity that hasn't come to terms with what "Gay" means in the non-heterosexual community. "Gay" was once the umbrella adjective used to describe everyone who engaged in same-sex attraction and relationships. Homosexual men were "Gay". Homosexual women were "Gay". Bisexual men and women were "Gay". Anyone who wasn't heterosexual was "Gay". Memory lane: it was precisely because the Los Angeles Gay Community Services Center was titled "Gay Community" that lesbians in the 1980s walked out and founded Connexxus Women's Center in West Hollywood (see http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt1779r55b/admin/) -- because "Gay" identity politics did not recognize and acknowledge the lesbian involvement in the Center, and the lesbian community that participated in its programs (see Gay L.A.: A History of Sexual Outlaws, Power Politics, and Lipstick Lesbians (2006) by Lillian Faderman and Stuart Timmons). Boys vs Girls vs Boys. When the Center finally got its act together, it changed its name to the "Los Angeles Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center". Why was a distinction needed between Gay and Lesbian if a distinction was not considered necessary?

When I hear "Gay", I think men. I'm far from being the only one who does. And while "Gay" is a general and more palatable descriptive term for those who squirm when they hear the word "lesbian", health services that target homosexual men are called "Gay" men services. Homosexual male porn is called "Gay" porn. A "Gay" bathhouse is not a health club or spa. The Spartacus Gay Guide describes itself as a guide for gay and bisexual men. Everyone gets exactly what "Gay" has meant for the last 50 years ... except Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary talk 11:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, the lead of the article currently states, "In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and as a noun, referring to the people, especially to gay males, and the practices and cultures associated with homosexuality. By the end of the 20th century, the word gay was recommended by major LGBT groups and style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. " It mentions "especially to gay males." In the "Gay community vs. LGBT community" section, it states, in part, "Starting in the mid-1980s in the United States, a conscious effort was under way within what was then only called the gay community, to add the term lesbian to the name of all gay organizations that catered to both male and female homosexuals, and to use the terminology of gay and lesbian, or lesbian/gay when referring to that community. So, organizations like the National Gay Task Force became the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. For many ardent feminist lesbians, it was also important that the L come first, lest an L following a G become another symbol of male dominance over women, although other women prefer the usage gay woman." So the article mentions use of the term lesbian and its importance with respect to gay as well. Regardless, gay is a general term that applies to women as well. Many lesbian women prefer to use that term for their sexual identity. Either way, despite the previous discussion focusing partly on there not being a distinct term for men, completely equivalent to lesbian, using "gay" in the title is not the problem; we do have the Gay sexual practices article now, which is solely about men. The issue is how to go about creating a Gay male article article that is not overly redundant to existing articles or mainly about American culture. When it comes to the history of homosexuality, it is mostly about men and is covered in numerous articles. This is why I stated that it seems that a Gay male article would mostly be distinct by covering the culture; I meant modern culture. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clearer, when a topic is mostly about one aspect (such as one gender), it is the aspect that gets less attention that might get a spin-off article. For example, bodybuilding is mostly about men. So we have a Female bodybuilding article. There is no need for a Male bodybuilding article The rape literature is mostly about women as victims. So we have a Rape of males article. There is no need for a Rape of females article. When it comes to covering homosexuality, those who have documented it have mostly concerned themselves with men (meaning historically), as mentioned in the History of homosexuality and Lesbian articles. So given that male homosexuality is already well-covered on Wikipedia because history has mostly focused on it, and given that the term lesbian specifically concerns women, it makes sense that there is a Lesbian article and has yet to be a Gay male article. I'm not stating that a Gay male article is not needed, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to concur with this. A compelling case really hasn't been made for a separate article. On the gay=male point, my personal experience (which is hardly exhaustive and may be irrelevant) is that a fair number of women do refer to themselves as gay. It's not universal, but neither is it rare. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I couldn't give a flying stilleto about how many women prefer to use the term "Gay" to identify their sexual orientation. I've sat in many groups of women for many years and have heard a myriad of reasons for the "I prefer to call myself Gay". Internalized homophobia is why many of them use the safer and softer-sounding term (instead of the visualizing "Lesbian", which leaves no room for doubt about how you sweat the linen).
I fail to see why Wikipedia can't have a "[[Gay (homosexual male)]]" article. Grab all the scattered content about homosexual men that exists in various articles and incorporate all of it into it. Include content about the sub-cultures within the Gay male community (leathermen, bears, drag queens, etc.); how Gay men see themselves, etc. Add "Main article: Gay (homosexual male)" in the /Sexual Orientation/ section of the Human male sexuality article. Leave "See also: Gay (homosexual male)" indicators wherever necessary.
The project would be time consuming, yes, but well worth it and long overdue. Pyxis Solitary talk 13:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, we only mentioned the topic of some or many women preferring to call themselves gay because of what you stated about the term above. I've also known many women to simply call themselves gay, with or without a preference for the term, and internalized homophobia does not seem to be the usual reason. It's just that, in public discourse, gay is general when it comes to same-sex romantic/sexual attraction. The term gay marriage is one example of the general use. So many women simply use the term; they are not necessarily opposed to the term lesbian (although some are). As for "grab[bing] all the scattered content about homosexual men that exists in various articles and incorporat[ing] all of it into it," it's not that simple. So much of that stuff is relevant to the articles it's in. Anyway, if someone creates a solid Gay male article, I won't oppose. I don't think the title should be "Gay (homosexual male)," though. We only disambiguate when needed, and so many LGBT people object to the term homosexual (as mentioned times before at WP:LGBT). Objection to that term is also mentioned in the Gay article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That section also mentions that some reject the term gay. But rejection of the term homosexual is more prevalent, which is why a number of style guides recommend against its use with few exceptions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear what parts of speech the words in "Gay (homosexual male)" would be. Presumably you're using "gay" a noun, but that usage is disliked by a whole lot of people. If you're using it as an adjective, well, we don't usually title articles that way. The awkward fact here is that there is no word exactly analogous to "lesbian" referring to gay males in the English language. Anyhow, it's not that there can't be an article on this topic; all I'm saying is I don't see a particular need for one. And collecting scattered content from diverse articles doesn't necessarily lend itself to the creation of a coherent article. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Each one of us has her and his own personal experience. When I was outed by a family member and my mother confronted me about what she had been told, she didn't ask me if it was true that I was "Gay" -- she asked me if it was true that I was a "Lesbian". My mother was born in 1924. Even in the Third World society she grew up in, everyone knew what "Lesbian" meant. When I came out and started going to social groups for lesbians, I met homosexual women who recoiled from using the word to identify their sexual preference. More than thirty years later, I still continue to meet these types of homosexual women.
If Wikipedia can have an article about "Cisgender", a word used in Usenet in 1994, which then caught fire within transgender circles and quickly became popularized as the go-to terminology when referring to biological sex ... Wikipedia can also have an article about what the "G" in LGBT refers to. According to Oxford: "Gay meaning ‘homosexual’ became established in the 1960s as the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. It is now the standard accepted term throughout the English-speaking world."
I am not a Wikipedia editor that abides by what the madding crowd prefers. "Homosexual" is a legitimate term that has been in use since the 1800s to describe humans that prefer their own sex for romance, physical pleasure and sexual company. The PC crowd is always finding something to object to and I, personally, don't ignore or suppress facts just because it makes anyone uncomfortable. (And in case someone feels compelled to lecture me about "sex assignment" ... don't bother. Except for the very rare case where the flesh between the tiny legs of a newborn can't be determined by looking at it, the genitalia of a newborn isn't "assigned" -- it is what it is ... what you see is what you get.)
I've said all I have to say about the need and justification for creating a Wikipedia article about "Gay (men)" (aka homosexual men). If the community of Gay male Wikipedians don't care if a separate article exists or not, then Wikipedia can continue to exist with yada yada about LGBT, minus the G. Roger.over.out. Pyxis Solitary talk 04:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

By any chance, are you familiar with the metaphor about the relative merits of honey and vinegar as a lure for flies? If you're going to lecture your fellow Wikipedians in a condescending manner, don't be surprised if they don't magically fall in line behind your proposals. Fact is, I was reading with interest what you had to say, and I had hoped to engage in meaningful conversation about it. I'm well aware that there is room for a vast amount of improvement in Wikipedia's coverage of topics relating to sexual orientation, and I was perfectly willing to entertain the idea that there's a major article missing. In my experience, significant improvement often happens after a prolonged discussion with considerable comments and questions back and forth; that's how ideas get clarified so that more people understand their merits and join together to form consensus. But apparently I'm part of both the madding crowd and the PC crowd, and as such I guess my expectations are unrealistic. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 09:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, what I've stated above has to do with how Wikipedia works, what is the best for Wikipedia, and what reliable sources state. If it was simply about how Wikipedians feel, then I would not have stated "a number of style guides recommend against its use with few exceptions." We use homosexual in our sexual orientation articles. But when it comes to calling a man or woman "homosexual" outside of that? No, we generally stay away from doing that since there is no reason not to state "gay" and "lesbian" instead (unless dealing with a historical figure, who existed way before such terms came into play) and since style guides recommend using "gay" and "lesbian" instead. Many homophobic people use the term homosexual to delegitimize same-sex sexual relationships. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 105#Alexey Karetnikov "homosexual men" vs "MSM". Also see see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#LGBT instead of homosexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 47#Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56#Use of the term "homosexual.", and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 53#"Homosexual" vs. "Gay" – Wikipedia policy?. Even in sexual orientation articles, we usually use "gay" and "lesbian" when referring to the people. The arguments made by Rivertorch and I are not about being PC; it's about us being significantly experienced Wikipedians considering the pros and cons, if any pros at all, and weighing that against how Wikipedia functions and what is best for Wikipedia. And keep in mind that I never stated that I oppose having a Gay male article. I am not someone who simply goes along with what others want, especially on this site, which is why many know me to cite WP:Advocacy when disagreeing with editors' advocacy views. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You both took the "madding crowd" and "PC crowd" as a personal shot aimed in your direction. It was not. It was a general statement based on my experiences within the Gay / then Lesbian and Gay / then Lesbian–Gay–Bisexual–Transgender community. I belong to a growing 'take back the word' movement: take back all the labels (including "homosexual") that distinguish our individualities -- because the only thing that LGBTQI_XYZ has in common is that we are not heterosexual.
Engaging in a Wikipedia debate cuts my short life shorter. It is static. It is one-dimensional. There is no room for nuance. You can't see a person's facial expressions, nor read their body language. When all is said and done, Wikipedia is not an academic, social, artistic, political, and/or religious crusade ... it's this, and this, and that, and that, and this. (And may the goddess Ekhi help us all, because now it's in bed with the devil.) Wikipedia is a playground -- and the only thing anyone can realistically get out of what she or he does in it, is personal satisfaction. Create the Gay (male) article. Don't create the Gay (male) article. Either way, life goes on. Pyxis Solitary talk 23:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, I wasn't sure if the PC commentary extended to Rivertorch and me, but it certainly wasn't unreasonable to think that it did. I just wanted to make it clear that my arguments were not about being, or trying to be, PC. As for Wikipedia, I'm generally not here to edit it for fun; I've made that clear times before. I'm here because not only did I get addicted to editing here, but I realized that so many people come to Wikipedia for information, including for crucial information, and I'd rather they get accurate and unbiased information (at least on the topics I work on) if they are going to come here. (If the bias is due to us giving more weight to the literature, then that's fine.) This site is plagued with corruptness, and both Rivertorch and I know that. I mainly work in contentious areas on this site, and many of those areas have few or no editors helping out, and my edits make a substantial difference. That's why I'm here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

When I see the phrase "political correctness" or its abbreviation, PC, I usually don't read any further. (Same thing out there in the world when someone says it to me: it's a conversation stopper.) Its original, ironic usage has become uncommon, and while it still means different things to different people, at best anymore, it seems to be indicative of sloppy, dismissive thinking involving unfounded generalizations about disparate ideas. And all too often nowadays, it's used to attack those who are striving for a more just and humane society or by way of apology for the ones perpetrating such attacks. If PC is about countering prejudice in any guise, then I'm all for it, and I'll gladly defend any Wikipedian who is accused of being PC, whether or not it's me!

I'm sorry to hear that you're part of the movement you describe, but that's a topic that's really way beyond the scope of this talk page. I'll say this much: you're dead wrong that "the only thing that LGBTQI_XYZ has in common is that we are not heterosexual". Quite a few trans people are indeed heterosexual. Nevertheless, they do have a couple of things in common with the LGB component of the alphabet soup. For one thing, they are in many quarters despised just for being themselves. Also, the discrimination they face is largely rooted in rigid ideas about gender roles.

The problems you describe about inability to convey tone aren't specific to Wikipedia; they've been endemic across the Internet for more than two decades. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that, for all its problems, it is a community of sorts with its own culture that affords the opportunity for meaningful communication, including nuance, if we choose to take it. Nothing worth building is ever easy to build, and Wikipedia is no exception. That's really what I was trying to say above (and failed). Persuasion isn't easy. It takes a lot of patience, as well as a willingness to have one's ideas challenged and a willingness to adapt those ideas based on feedback received. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

See how long this convo among just three persons has become? I'm telling you, Wikipedia discussions can drain the blood from a vampire. The three of us spend time here for the same reason: to make sure b.s. doesn't become fact. Exit, stage left! ... and a little levity, 'cause we've got a long way to slide. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)