This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Is the reference to History of Sexuality a reference to the book by Michel Foucault, which talks about whether coming out is prudent, or is it actually a reference to that wikipage? If it is a reference to the book, which is what I assumed, should the link be changed? If it's not a reference to the book, would someone clarify what in the linked page relates to the prudence of coming out?
{This is an outline section describing on-line social networking in gay (and mostly gay male) culture. A rigourous and comprehensive article would refer to articles published on- or off-line which have measured or at the very least, made note of the phenomenon. At present, it contains many rather bold assertions that cry out for imperical research, but which could also be justified for inclusion in a Wikipedia article if backed up by appropriate references to authors who are stating what I feel is generally believed to be true.}
Well-read meeja-types: here is your chance
Douglas Jardine 00:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm tagging the whole article for lack of sources. I'm also removing the following phrase (my italics) from the "Gay male culture" section for POV:
A small group of privileged, Euroethnic gay men formed the Violet Quill society, which focused on writing about gay experience as something central and normal in a story for the first time, rather than as a "naughty" sideline to a mostly straight story. -- Textorus 23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Since the first section has the same name as the article, isn't it sort of redundant? Shouldn't that section be something like "Definitions", then move those subsections up one level? Anyone disagree? -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 01:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
As an attempt to move this article towards Summary style, I've split the LGBT culture section out into its own article. The section left here is desparately in need of rewriting. -- Alynna ( talk) 02:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Not only is this a strong POV without any references whatsoever, it seriously confuses Gender with Sexuality. It basically says that the Western societies are based upon a classification of Gender and Sexuality... while the rest are not, When the fact is that all societies in the past have been based upon Gender identities of people (but not on sexuality), mainly into: Man, woman and Third sex; while the Modern West is primarily divided into a strange amalgmation of Gender and Sexuality, where masculine exclusive heterosexuality is kept in one group, and all the rest forms of Gender and Sexuality (masculine male to male sexuality, feminine male to male sexuality, all forms of bisexuality, lesbianism, queer heterosexuality) are kept under LGBT.
This article seriously confuses the matter, and if it can't be improved, it should be proposed for deletion.
It's really disturbing how biased towards Western LGBT POV, Wikipedia is. While it lets be a seriously flawed POV like this one, it has repeatedly deleted articles that are not in tandem with LGBT POV, even when they have been put up with references (e.g. Voices against the Concept of Sexual Orientation). ( Masculinity ( talk) 08:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
That section and the Wikipedia article on sexual fetishism uses the term rather archaically, and confuses it with kink (sexual), and even paraphilia and what not. Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Poliamory pride in San Francisco 2004.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 5 August 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sexuality and gender identity-based cultures. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Is the reference to History of Sexuality a reference to the book by Michel Foucault, which talks about whether coming out is prudent, or is it actually a reference to that wikipage? If it is a reference to the book, which is what I assumed, should the link be changed? If it's not a reference to the book, would someone clarify what in the linked page relates to the prudence of coming out?
{This is an outline section describing on-line social networking in gay (and mostly gay male) culture. A rigourous and comprehensive article would refer to articles published on- or off-line which have measured or at the very least, made note of the phenomenon. At present, it contains many rather bold assertions that cry out for imperical research, but which could also be justified for inclusion in a Wikipedia article if backed up by appropriate references to authors who are stating what I feel is generally believed to be true.}
Well-read meeja-types: here is your chance
Douglas Jardine 00:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm tagging the whole article for lack of sources. I'm also removing the following phrase (my italics) from the "Gay male culture" section for POV:
A small group of privileged, Euroethnic gay men formed the Violet Quill society, which focused on writing about gay experience as something central and normal in a story for the first time, rather than as a "naughty" sideline to a mostly straight story. -- Textorus 23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Since the first section has the same name as the article, isn't it sort of redundant? Shouldn't that section be something like "Definitions", then move those subsections up one level? Anyone disagree? -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 01:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
As an attempt to move this article towards Summary style, I've split the LGBT culture section out into its own article. The section left here is desparately in need of rewriting. -- Alynna ( talk) 02:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Not only is this a strong POV without any references whatsoever, it seriously confuses Gender with Sexuality. It basically says that the Western societies are based upon a classification of Gender and Sexuality... while the rest are not, When the fact is that all societies in the past have been based upon Gender identities of people (but not on sexuality), mainly into: Man, woman and Third sex; while the Modern West is primarily divided into a strange amalgmation of Gender and Sexuality, where masculine exclusive heterosexuality is kept in one group, and all the rest forms of Gender and Sexuality (masculine male to male sexuality, feminine male to male sexuality, all forms of bisexuality, lesbianism, queer heterosexuality) are kept under LGBT.
This article seriously confuses the matter, and if it can't be improved, it should be proposed for deletion.
It's really disturbing how biased towards Western LGBT POV, Wikipedia is. While it lets be a seriously flawed POV like this one, it has repeatedly deleted articles that are not in tandem with LGBT POV, even when they have been put up with references (e.g. Voices against the Concept of Sexual Orientation). ( Masculinity ( talk) 08:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
That section and the Wikipedia article on sexual fetishism uses the term rather archaically, and confuses it with kink (sexual), and even paraphilia and what not. Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Poliamory pride in San Francisco 2004.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 5 August 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sexuality and gender identity-based cultures. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)