Talk:Gay men
Latest comment: 15 days ago by RoxySaunders in topic Should we use a photo in the lede?
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gay men article. 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 |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days  |
 | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2024
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Victor Nedkov is on the list Gorgrimale (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2024 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Image in wrong place
editThe image of Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum (Egypt, Africa) is placed in the Americas section. --2804:2FB0:70D:2A00:80CE:EB40:2F2F:47A8 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is a display artefact based on screen layout and resolution. The image is correctly placed in the article (as in, the article's Wikimarkup) but displays incorrectly if the article itself is viewed with a larger screen. For me, I see it at the bottom of the Americas section on my large monitor. If I shrink my browser to a narrower layout, it displays in the correct place. I've seen this behaviour in a lot of pages, normally when an infobox 'squashes' the text. The only way I've seen to fix this is to move the image lower in the section. Anyone have a better solution? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. Thanks for explaining. --2804:2FB0:70D:2A00:655A:7F4B:2F7A:6E55 (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't we change the picture?
editShouldn't there be another imagine instead of this one? Since the Apollon et Cyparisse by Claude Marie Dubufe, 1821 is crealy a depiction of greek mythological pederasty, I think we should change it. 2A02:2F00:3203:3200:4939:FB23:EC70:E19B (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Past versions of this article used File:TwoMenKiss.GayPrideParade.WDC.10June2017.jpg, and was replaced last month, with the rationale that Apollon et Cyparisse is SFW and a renowned painting. I agree with your reasoning (that it's better to illustrate this topic with real people) and I've gone ahead and restored this as the first image in the article. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @RoxySaunders! I wholeheartedly support this change. The previous replacement of the picture escaped notice and was done for highly inappropriate reasons; if someone thinks that two fully-clothed men kissing is NSFW, they have more problems than an encyclopaedia can fix. The image you restored is both better at illustrating the subject and more vibrant. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you as well Roxy! I thought the painting was a bad depiction of gay men because it depics a grown man ( or should I say a grown God ) with a teenage boy.
- This new picture that you restored is a much better depiction. 2A02:2F00:3203:3200:4939:FB23:EC70:E19B (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- As a courtesy, the change to File:Claude Marie Dubufe-Apollon et Cyparisse.jpg occured in Special:Diff/1230416906. I'm hard-pressed to say whether the painting's depiction of Achillean handholding between two naked male figures (genitalia tastefully obscured) is more or less scandalous than a same-sex kiss. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 02:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please discuss here before changing the lead image. The current one keeps getting replaced without consensus or (imho) a good reason. CheersLast1in (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Should we use a photo in the lede?
editAn ongoing discussion at Talk:Lesbian has displayed general support for that article to not use an image of two lesbians kissing unless they are actually identified as lesbians. Similar circumstances has been going on with this article. The image of two men kissing each other in a pride parade doesn't mean that they are gay. They can be bisexual as well. So, I think just like the article of Lesbian this article also shouldn't use the image of two men kissing as the lede image. Thoughts? 202.5.37.238 (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- The male homosexuality symbol is perfect for the lede image just like the female homosexuality image is used as the lede image in the article of lesbian. 202.5.37.238 (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think this is much of a concern in my opinion as the lead says "Gay men are male homosexuals. Some bisexual and homoromantic men may dually identify as gay." ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I call bullshit! First, the IP that posted the above is literally the only editor in that discussion to support the 'female homosexuality image'. The age-old alchemical symbols for Mars and Venus have only represented male and female since the eighteenth century, and interlocking them to denote homosexuality started in the 1970s. Men have been snogging each other for millenia.
- Second, there is zero 'general support' in that discussion for the idea that we need a signed affidavit that the people in the picture are, in fact, gay. It was suggested by a single editor and quickly shot down. As the inimitable @RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ points out, the MOS dismisses that argument in no uncertain terms:
Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic
(emphasis in original). If you can convince me that you know a lot of gay guys who look like circles with arrows stuck on, then we have a discussion. That image does nothing to educate about or illustrate the nature of gay men. Two guys kissing does, and the lede image here is perfectly suited to the content of this article. This relentless attempt to conservative-proof the encyclopaedia needs to stop. Dehumanising homosexuals by replacing images of us with black-and-white symbols is unencyclopaedic and just plain wrong. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Images serve to illustrate the primary topic. A photograph of two gay men is better and more illustrative than an abstract symbol. The photo is high quality, and the fact that it includes an incidental rainbow flag in the background is very nice. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)