This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Heterosexualization redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This topic proves very hard to discuss because of its controversial nature, but the English104h group has tried hard to remain objective. Expansion is always welcome. English104h ( talk) 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)English104h
A subsection for online gaming needs to be created. English104h ( talk) 00:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)English104h
Needs to be researched and created. English104h ( talk) 00:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)English104h
I removed the two images of the film poster and the Simpsons. They seemed just to illustrate the article, and being copyrighted images, they can not be used in this manner. I'm not sure the point of the intertwined male/female symbols on this page? The image needs a caption at least to indicate why it is there. Lady of Shalott 20:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm sorry. My group, who is responsible for creating this article, is just learning how to edit and format everything on wikipedia. I've just added captions for pictures in order to explain relevance. English104h ( talk) 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)English104h
In creating this article, it was very difficult to research a topic not yet on wikipedia and find reliable resources. There are few articles on heterosexualization. Please help research and add more information, resulting in more references. English104h ( talk) 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)English104h
I'm having a hard time determining how this article about Heterosexualization is distinct from our article about Heteronormativity? Aren't they basically aspects of the same topic? Wouldn't it make sense to merge all of this into one article? ~ Teledildonix314~ Talk~ 4-1-1~ 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I've seen the term homosexualization being used by critics of the gay liberation movement. I'm not sure it's entirely relevant, but it exists anyway. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ADM ( talk) 08:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It's so unfortunate that the issue of heterosexualization, has been 'homosexualized' by the western LGBT faction on Wikipedia. the article has completely lost its relevance and original context in which the term has been used by a minority but strong opponents of the homo-hetero divide of the industrialized world. 'Homosexuality' and 'homosexuals' are part and parcel of the heterosexualization process (not anti to it), which feminizes, marginalizes and 'homosexualizes' male-male intimacy/ love/ sexual desire. Heterosexualization is not an issue that affects those who define themselves as LGBT. It affects those who are in the mainstream and define themselves as straight. This article has converted the entire issue of heterosexualization into a 'homosexual' issue and a part of the 'queer studies'. Heterosexualization is not about heteronormativity or homophobia, that this article has reduced it to. The LGBT lobby that has been given the control over defining information on male gender and sexuality especially that involves sexuality between men, has managed to manipulate another important information about male gender and sexuality and the sexual politics that surround it. Very unfortunate. ( Masculinity ( talk) 14:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC))
4chan ought to be included. Nothing pokes more fun at homosexuality than 4chan - infact, theye ven reference to all of their members as 'fags'. Newfag, Britfag, Amerifag, Oldfag, so on...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.162.196 ( talk)
This article makes it seem as if Heterosexualization is primarily an LGBT issue. It is not. It affects most humans, although, not in similar way or to similar extent. Besides, men do not have the space to talk about it openly. This discussion is too much worded as an LGBT issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity ( talk • contribs)
Heterosexulization is a process that primarily affects the non-LGBT, The proposition that LGBT individuals maybe heterosexualized is preposterous, since, had they been heterosexualized, they would not be LGBT anymore. LGBT are the people who have escaped heterosexualization, and so its a misrepresentation of the issue, when the entire article revolves around making it an issue that affects the LGBT, especially, when it is unreferenced (the references only talk about homophobia).
The danger of making heterosexualization into a 'gay' issue, is that then the people that it affects the most -- that is those who don't relate with the sexual identities (as in the case of the non-west) or those who take the heterosexual identity under pressure or conditioning (through heterosexualization) in order to escape the gay identity, then are excluded from its readership and even if they read it would not relate with it as something that affects them -- as this creates a big psychological barrier. It amounts to hijacking the issue by the LGBT community.
It is this reason for which I feel the inclusion of this article as "part of a series on issues that affect LGBT people is wrong." It is as much an issue that affects LGBT people, as 'heterosexuality' Is heterosexuality a part of this series? Homosexualization of this issue stigmatizes it for the people to which it affects the most, and serves no purpose. The LGBT people have several terms to discuss the issue of 'homophobia' and other LGBT issues, and its unreasonable for them to appropriate everything that challenges heterosexuality in its own fold. This is a politics that distorts the facts, especially of those that are affected negatively by the western concept of sexual orientation, especially, the non-westerners. ( Masculinity ( talk) 14:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC))
The thing to do would be not to delete content, but to find the sourced academic content that supposes not only an LGBT issue. That's clearly quite a fascinating and perhaps contentious point, but nevertheless an ancillary one. Clearly worthy of discussion, but the very frame of such a discussion emerges from an acknowledging the extent to which it is an LGBT issue. So please, Google Scholar and your local library, and come back. Or as Flyer suggested, a merging/re-organisation of the articles. A very long but competent article which discusses the issues in relation to one another might be very impressive, but then an encylcopedia might also owe it readers to clearly distinguish fine, essentially academic concepts, and explore each of them fully (to the extent sources allow).
The main issue with this article is it seems to read like a paraphrase of a single journal article discussing "Heterosexualiization in popular media". It doesn't draw from a significant wealth of research or theory. It either should be compressed into a chunky section in Heteronormativity, or opened up considerably; attending to ways in which it is "not solely an LGBT issue" is one way of doing that, but that should be done by adding new content, not taking away.~ Zythe Talk to me! 15:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea whether heterosexualization is deserving of its own article. If it is, then it needs much better sources for the lede (which should be rewritten—especially the jargon-laden, tldr second paragraph) and any subsequent sections should have sources that actually use the word (otherwise it's probably synthesis). If this cannot be done, I'd recommend salvaging bits and pieces where possible and using them to fill in gaps in various articles (e.g., Homophobia and Bullying), then add a short section (or maybe just a sentence) on heterosexualization to Heteronormativity and redirect this to there. (Not sure what to do about the bizarrely-titled "Digital media" section, which reads like a rather inept college term paper. There might be articles where some of that could go.)
Fwiw, I just found this, which confirms that the article was created as a school project. Rivertorch ( talk) 17:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Heterosexualization redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This topic proves very hard to discuss because of its controversial nature, but the English104h group has tried hard to remain objective. Expansion is always welcome. English104h ( talk) 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)English104h
A subsection for online gaming needs to be created. English104h ( talk) 00:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)English104h
Needs to be researched and created. English104h ( talk) 00:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)English104h
I removed the two images of the film poster and the Simpsons. They seemed just to illustrate the article, and being copyrighted images, they can not be used in this manner. I'm not sure the point of the intertwined male/female symbols on this page? The image needs a caption at least to indicate why it is there. Lady of Shalott 20:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm sorry. My group, who is responsible for creating this article, is just learning how to edit and format everything on wikipedia. I've just added captions for pictures in order to explain relevance. English104h ( talk) 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)English104h
In creating this article, it was very difficult to research a topic not yet on wikipedia and find reliable resources. There are few articles on heterosexualization. Please help research and add more information, resulting in more references. English104h ( talk) 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)English104h
I'm having a hard time determining how this article about Heterosexualization is distinct from our article about Heteronormativity? Aren't they basically aspects of the same topic? Wouldn't it make sense to merge all of this into one article? ~ Teledildonix314~ Talk~ 4-1-1~ 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I've seen the term homosexualization being used by critics of the gay liberation movement. I'm not sure it's entirely relevant, but it exists anyway. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ADM ( talk) 08:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It's so unfortunate that the issue of heterosexualization, has been 'homosexualized' by the western LGBT faction on Wikipedia. the article has completely lost its relevance and original context in which the term has been used by a minority but strong opponents of the homo-hetero divide of the industrialized world. 'Homosexuality' and 'homosexuals' are part and parcel of the heterosexualization process (not anti to it), which feminizes, marginalizes and 'homosexualizes' male-male intimacy/ love/ sexual desire. Heterosexualization is not an issue that affects those who define themselves as LGBT. It affects those who are in the mainstream and define themselves as straight. This article has converted the entire issue of heterosexualization into a 'homosexual' issue and a part of the 'queer studies'. Heterosexualization is not about heteronormativity or homophobia, that this article has reduced it to. The LGBT lobby that has been given the control over defining information on male gender and sexuality especially that involves sexuality between men, has managed to manipulate another important information about male gender and sexuality and the sexual politics that surround it. Very unfortunate. ( Masculinity ( talk) 14:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC))
4chan ought to be included. Nothing pokes more fun at homosexuality than 4chan - infact, theye ven reference to all of their members as 'fags'. Newfag, Britfag, Amerifag, Oldfag, so on...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.162.196 ( talk)
This article makes it seem as if Heterosexualization is primarily an LGBT issue. It is not. It affects most humans, although, not in similar way or to similar extent. Besides, men do not have the space to talk about it openly. This discussion is too much worded as an LGBT issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity ( talk • contribs)
Heterosexulization is a process that primarily affects the non-LGBT, The proposition that LGBT individuals maybe heterosexualized is preposterous, since, had they been heterosexualized, they would not be LGBT anymore. LGBT are the people who have escaped heterosexualization, and so its a misrepresentation of the issue, when the entire article revolves around making it an issue that affects the LGBT, especially, when it is unreferenced (the references only talk about homophobia).
The danger of making heterosexualization into a 'gay' issue, is that then the people that it affects the most -- that is those who don't relate with the sexual identities (as in the case of the non-west) or those who take the heterosexual identity under pressure or conditioning (through heterosexualization) in order to escape the gay identity, then are excluded from its readership and even if they read it would not relate with it as something that affects them -- as this creates a big psychological barrier. It amounts to hijacking the issue by the LGBT community.
It is this reason for which I feel the inclusion of this article as "part of a series on issues that affect LGBT people is wrong." It is as much an issue that affects LGBT people, as 'heterosexuality' Is heterosexuality a part of this series? Homosexualization of this issue stigmatizes it for the people to which it affects the most, and serves no purpose. The LGBT people have several terms to discuss the issue of 'homophobia' and other LGBT issues, and its unreasonable for them to appropriate everything that challenges heterosexuality in its own fold. This is a politics that distorts the facts, especially of those that are affected negatively by the western concept of sexual orientation, especially, the non-westerners. ( Masculinity ( talk) 14:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC))
The thing to do would be not to delete content, but to find the sourced academic content that supposes not only an LGBT issue. That's clearly quite a fascinating and perhaps contentious point, but nevertheless an ancillary one. Clearly worthy of discussion, but the very frame of such a discussion emerges from an acknowledging the extent to which it is an LGBT issue. So please, Google Scholar and your local library, and come back. Or as Flyer suggested, a merging/re-organisation of the articles. A very long but competent article which discusses the issues in relation to one another might be very impressive, but then an encylcopedia might also owe it readers to clearly distinguish fine, essentially academic concepts, and explore each of them fully (to the extent sources allow).
The main issue with this article is it seems to read like a paraphrase of a single journal article discussing "Heterosexualiization in popular media". It doesn't draw from a significant wealth of research or theory. It either should be compressed into a chunky section in Heteronormativity, or opened up considerably; attending to ways in which it is "not solely an LGBT issue" is one way of doing that, but that should be done by adding new content, not taking away.~ Zythe Talk to me! 15:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea whether heterosexualization is deserving of its own article. If it is, then it needs much better sources for the lede (which should be rewritten—especially the jargon-laden, tldr second paragraph) and any subsequent sections should have sources that actually use the word (otherwise it's probably synthesis). If this cannot be done, I'd recommend salvaging bits and pieces where possible and using them to fill in gaps in various articles (e.g., Homophobia and Bullying), then add a short section (or maybe just a sentence) on heterosexualization to Heteronormativity and redirect this to there. (Not sure what to do about the bizarrely-titled "Digital media" section, which reads like a rather inept college term paper. There might be articles where some of that could go.)
Fwiw, I just found this, which confirms that the article was created as a school project. Rivertorch ( talk) 17:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)