Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:41, 23 October 2009

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gay. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gay at the Reference desk.

LGBTQ+ studies C‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gay article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Archives

August 2006 – December 2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Proposal

1) Move historic uses to Gay (historic uses)

2) Move pejorative high school usage to Gay (Pejorative non-sexualized usage) or something.

1x) OR move both of them to Gay (other uses)

3) Expand expand expand, this article has so much more to tell. Make it more like Lesbian. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this a vote? Anyway, I have already said way too much above, but if it's a vote mine would be oppose 1 and 2, support 3. ("Expand expand expand" is always a good proposal :) ) rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose all these suggestions. The so-called 'high school' use is closely related to the mainstream use, and is derived from it. The whole debate about the use of the word in this way is inseparable from its mainstream meaning. Otherwise there would have been no BBC complaint and no 'homophobia is gay' campaign. Creating a pointless stub article on the pejorative usage would just conceal the fact that it is interlinked with the main meaning. It would be an oblique form of censoship. Paul B (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the etymology of the word can be addressed in an article that reflects how the meaning of Gay has changed; since it assumed a meaning associated with prostitution and really happy - these are cultural issues that should be discussed in the creation of Gay identity in the 20th century. The further "Object/Activity is gay" high school I'm-not-homophobic-it's-the-different-connotation-of-the-word usage is another facet of that Gay identity. If this article is going to be changed, then someone should start with checking out all the books and materials available on Gay identity and culture. If not, then a separate article should be created on how gay men have formed their own cultures in Western societies, how they have reacted to being separated, how they have been persecuted and portrayed, and the impact Gay male culture has had on society overall. --Moni3 (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the proposal. I agree entirely with the comment above from brewcrewer that the whole reason for an article "Gay", rather than a redirect to Homosexuality is that the word does not exclusively mean "homosexual". The proposal is, in a nutshell, to turn the article "gay" into one purely about homosexuality, in which case this article becomes redundant. In fact it seems to me to make more sense to do the reverse: information purely about homosexuality could all be in the article on that topic, rather than unnecessarily fragmenting information by having it split between two articles. Then the article "gay" could briefly mention that meaning, and link to the main article on the topic. This would, in fact, be a half-way step towards the above suggestion of turning the article "Gay" into a disambiguation page. I am not in favour of the disambiguation option, but it would make far more sense than the opposite move suggested in this proposal. However, I actually think there is a good case for an article which links the different meanings together. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose 1 and 2; Support 3 - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 11:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Immorality mention in the lead-in sentence

Unless there is strong objection, I am moving this into the history section. The subject usage is not mentioned in the initial sentence. wp:MOS, it should be. The really old historical usage should be in history, not the lead-in. The "happy", etc., makes sense there.sinneed (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, not necessary in the lead. CTJF83Talk 00:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It should definitely not be the first sentence since it is not what the word means today, but the lead section should (and not necessarily now or certainly not in the way it is done now because this overemphasizes the historical pejorative use) summarize the whole article, including all its sections. SultrySuzie (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why is there nothing about, No on Prop 8 in this article. <California Proposition 8 (2008)> Thousands of people have poured their time and their resources into this struggle for freedom in California. I think it needs to be in here.--Michael (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is stuff about no on prob 8. California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Opponents CTJF83Talk 07:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the word "gay" in particular; it belongs in the Homosexuality article, maybe, rather than here. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 07:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I figured Michael was asking about the Prob 8 article, since he had it in brackets. If you are asking about the Gay article, then no, it shouldn't go in this article. CTJF83Talk 07:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thank You. I was only taking about this article.--Michael (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-sexual pejorative usage

I made a recent edit which was reverted, removing "non-sexual" from the description of this usage and replacing it with "Generalized pejorative usage". I'm still not entirely clear what "non-sexual" is trying to convey, given the context of the section and the sources it cites.

I'm guessing it is trying to convey "Pejorative usage unrelated to the 'homosexual' meaning". Yet the section and the sources do a rather good job of portraying how controversial that claim is. There is a POV that the usage means "rubbish" only and has no other connotations, but there is also a competing POV that the pejorative usage becomes meaningful by implicit reference to the "homosexual" denotation. That's essentially the decision the BBC Board of Governors was asked to make.

Based on the articles cited, I don't think defining the pejorative usage as "non-sexual" is warranted.--Trystan (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Paul B (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Of course the pejorative sense has developed because of the "homosexual" meaning, since to many people homosexuality is seen negatively. However, how the word developed that meaning is a different question from what the meaning is. "The governors believed that, in describing a ringtone as gay, the DJ was conveying that he thought it was 'rubbish' rather than 'homosexual'". I do not think that there was intended to be any suggestion that the ringtone had a connection of any sort with homosexuality, only that it was rubbish. It may be that the reason the person using the word in this case regarded the word as appropriate to use in this way was because he thought that homosexuality was bad, and so the word had that connotation. Alternatively it may be that he picked up the word in the pejorative sense from others, without himself thinking that homosexuality was contemptible. Either way it doesn't matter, because the use he was making of the word did not mean "homosexual", nor anything else to do with sex or sexuality, i.e. it was non-sexual. People who are perceived as trying to force their ways onto others are sometinmes referred to as fascists, without the intention of suggesting that they are members of Mussolini's political party. Of course the reason for using the word in this way is that it has connotations based on Mussolini's party, but that does not detract from the fact that the word is being used to mean something else. The connotation influences the meaning, but does not define it. Likewise if the word "gay" is used pejoratively because of its connotations of homosexuality, that does not detract from the fact that it is being used to mean something else: something non-sexual.
• In answer to "I'm still not entirely clear what 'non-sexual' is trying to convey": I should think it is trying to convey the following. To say that "gay" has a pejorative use is open to the interpretation that it can be used to mean "homosexual and therefore contemptible" (i.e. pejorative and sexual), whereas the point of the sentence is that it can be used also to mean "contemptible" (i.e. just pejorative). Therefore to merely state that the word has a pejorative meaning does not clearly state what the sentence was intended to convey. If Trystan or anyone else can think of a way of making this distinction that Trystan does not object to, then let's put that in instead, but simply deleting "non-sexual" destroys the intended meaning of the sentence. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Since writing the above I have thought of a possible way of satisfying both opinions: a whole new sentence stating that the word does not mean "homosexual", while explicitly acknowledging that the connotation may well be there. I have put this in the article: if it is felt to be acceptable then fine, and if not then other suggestions are welcome. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's excellent. Very clear and concise.--Trystan (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gay is used in a pejorative sense by very young speakers. It is part of the language learnt in the playground at primary school level, by speakers with very limited sexual knowledge, and probably no knowledge of homosexuality in most cases. It's ridiculous to suggest that this usage has any sexual connotation at all. Since this is commonly the word's first usage by those learning the language today, I believe that this usage needs to be clearly identified as having no connection at all with homosexuality. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

LGBT flag

Since this article is about the term in general, and not directly about sexuality, shouldn't the LGBT flag be removed from the intro? It seems completely out of place in the article. Canterbury Tail talk 11:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved the flag to the Homosexuality section, as that is a more appropriate place for it. CTJF83Talk 15:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the lead/intro is 95% about homosexuality/same-sex modern usage, there's really no reason it had to be moved. Not that it's a big deal but if you want to get technical... - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 18:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

New proposal

Homosexual and homosexuals redirect to homosexuality, whereas the more common gay and gays directs to an article exclusively about the word not actually about gay people, which is likely what most people are searching for. Misplaced Pages policy on naming conventions states you can only have the article non disambiguated "if the topic of the article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification" and otherwise needs to be disambugated. It is obvious "gay" as a word is not the primary use of the word. As a result, how about we disambiguate this page to something like gay (word), and have gay as a disambiguation page? - Epson291 (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I also just edited the page to try to make it clear right away what the word's primary/current usage is, but it does not solve the issue that this article is on the word, not on gays. - Epson291 (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you reside, but in my current daily experience (in the suburbs of Melbourne, Australia), by far the most common use of the word "gay" is as a pejorative adjective for anything a younger person doesn't like. For many of the youth of today the word is used in that way possibly hundreds of times a day. Nobody uses "gay" with the homosexual meaning that frequently. I wouldn't be game to claim that my experience represents any kind of global situation , and nor should the article say or imply that the "homosexual" meaning is the most common, without any research or reference to back up that claim. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources (in the form of various dictionaries, for starters) support the article's current focus. If what you say about daily, common usage of the word is correct, then such sources will come to reflect that in time, and this article can be expanded to reflect it as well. It would be particularly interesting, for the purposes of this article, to trace the origins of the general pejorative usage, which followed hard on the heels of the word's usage in the homosexual sense gaining increasing acceptance in mainstream society and everyday parlance. Rivertorch (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not true (and dictionaries are not always the best). For instance, Merriam-Webster, doesn't even include (see link here) the pejorative sense, which you say is the most common/predominant. Whereas the definition does include the sexual oritentation sense I was discussing (see the link here for both adjective and noun), it also includes the older senses of merry, and lively, which are old fashioned by today's standards (source). Also style guides, including the AP Stylebook and The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (source), which indicate current usage, both use the word gay to indicate people attracted to the same-sex, rather than any other word. So when someone types in "gay", unless there is a single word which is predominant (and you haven't shown any proof that the pejorative adjective is "by far" is the most common usage of both the adjective and noun versions of the word), it should go to a disambiguation page per the relevant Misplaced Pages policy I indicated above. - Epson291 (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hilo48, I think you're just basing your supposition (that "gay" is almost always used in the pejorative sense) on an unrepresentative sample of people. Sure, if you hang out around high school students a lot then you will hear this use a lot. But the homosexual meaning for "gay" is also extremely common, especially within the gay/LGBT community. (For one quick example... the domain name gay.com is a social networking site for gay people, there's nothing pejorative there.) rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comments more carefully before arguing against something I didn't say. I clearly said "I wouldn't be game to claim that my experience represents any kind of global situation." My point is that nobody else should either. Yes, "gay" IS the common word for homosexual these days. But it also has a strong meaning as a pejorative adjective, without a homosexual connection at all. That a dictionary (New York Times Manual of Style and Usage) doesn't even mention the meaning I'm discussing says more about that dictionary than it says about the word "gay". That just makes it a poor source. Homosexuality is a sensitive area, and the temptation to be politically correct and simply follow the lead of one group wanting to claim the word as exclusively their own is not the job of an encyclopaedia. "Gay" IS used as a pejorative adjective, AND to describe homosexuality. There ARE no sources to tell us which is more common across the English speaking world (despite some above saying I claimed that I knew). Misplaced Pages should reflect that. Maybe it should even try to reflect the very nature of this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles