Jump to content

Talk:Gay men/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Definition of "gay man"

Modern184 made edits 1, 2, and 3. He says, "Bisexuals cannot call themselves gay." I undid one edit. I said, " It doesn't appear the article is only about gay men in the strict sense. Yeah, some reject that usage for bisexual men, but some bisexual men or queer-identified men call themselves gay or gay men." Gay male culture is known to include bisexual men.

No comment on the edit summary Modern184 gave for this removal, but I agree with the removal. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of your view on bisexual men calling themselves gay, it's not relevant when the article is about gay men, not the word "gay" itself. A gay man is a biological man who's exclusively attracted to other biological men. I'm a gay man myself, I know the definition. My comment on the edit summary is entirely factual. Modern184 (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Modern184, it's a fact rather than my view. Bisexual men have mostly been ignored by researchers or included as gay men in research. Bisexual men are often included in population research and other research that focuses on gay men. One way in which this happens is if a bisexual man identifies as gay. Another thing complicating the population research is if a gay man initially identifies as bisexual. Group Work With Populations at Risk gives reasons for including bisexual men in groups for gay men. It says, "Similarly, in a coming-out group, one could include bisexual men because they share issues with gay men regarding accepting their desire for members of the same sex. In fact, many men who later identify as gay prefer to label themselves bisexual when they first begin to integrate their same-sex object choice." But it also gives reasons why including bisexual men when studying gay men can be counterproductive. This identity information and resulting issues seems to be something that should be acknowledged in the article. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I removed a source. Unless I missed where it supports that line, it's not there. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with the flag removal. there needs to be a flag to illustrate. or at least a gallery of purposed flags, including the 9 striped version by Gilbert Baker 8Y0 (she/ey; shey/shem) (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

south asia?

gay men of south asia are not mentioned in this Wikipedia article Oppsoopsum (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Plural title?

Should it just be "Gay man"? "Lesbian" isn't at "Lesbians". Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. Crossroads -talk- 07:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I disagree; I think it should be plural, as with ethnic groups (i.e. White people, African Americans etc.)
I also think Trans man, Trans woman (and indeed man and woman) Sexual minority, and similar pages about groups of people should be plural. I don't think I'm going to get consensus on this, and I'm unsure if there's any guidance in the MOS about this (I thought there was but I can't find it, but I was admittedly skim-reading). —AFreshStart (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Do gay men endure discrimination in Wikipedia?

Raynard S. Kington

Check out Raynard S. Kington, an openly gay Head of School of Andover. He's an esteemed educator but look what happens to his page. That he's well known for his commitment to social justice and diversity is well-referenced but these facts keep getting chopped out and again here and his list of articles he's written gets chopped out too. So would people watching this page consider adding his image to this page? Or does this page also get a lot of anti-LGBTQ nonsense? And would people object if I added his image his image here?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure all minorities who have Wikipedia articles receive discriminatory edits because they're minorities. How do you suggest adding this image to the article? In what context? Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Further, Kington is a double minority because he's both black and gay. Are you asking for help with his Wikipedia article as well? Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether there's room to add the image here in the United States section? I think it would help the page to have an example of an extremely successful educator here but I don't know this page. On the Kington page, I can't keep re-adding what to me is super-obvious, well-referenced, his support for social justice (he implemented a prize for it at Grinnell) and diversity, so I'm going to let others take the lead here lest I fun afoul of 1RR.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer, I don't understand why you are posting messages here and on talk pages of other articles instead of discussing your edits at Talk:Raynard S. Kington#Social justice and diversity claims. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
"And would people object if I added his image his image here?" No real objection from me. What is the image's copyright status? Dimadick (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I assume it's copyright status is good since it's in Wikimedia Commons, but I am loath to even begin to try to understand the labyrinthine rules of Wikimedia Commons.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
If you can make the image fit there in a natural way, I've no objection. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Level of discrimination

Early in the article there is mention that gay men “continue to face discrimination in their daily lives” but that does not accurately describe the situation. Much, much later in the article, it is pointed out that “gay men face some of the harshest and most hostile laws anywhere in the world.” The earlier mention of discrimination needs to be modified. As it is, the reader gets a false sense of the situation unless they read all the way to the end. 46.15.32.218 (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022

i need to make the page correct i am gay i need to change a sentence 1.146.177.60 (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Flag

Why isn’t the gay man’s pride flag anywhere on this page? It’s included on the LGBT symbols page but not on this one. Seems like an obvious problem? Gnawedacorn (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It was removed by @Modern184 on July 28. It was removed because it was trans-inclusive. The user @Enlightenedstranger0 agreed with the removal, as shown here. Tazuco (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The flag removal seems to do with the flag not being widely used or recognized. Crossroads -talk- 01:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@Crossroads: [citation needed]. The only subject mentioned in the discussion is a user objecting to it being trans-inclusive. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Yikes, that edit summary is deeply inaccurate and offensive. I can understand removing the flag for lack of notability (and am sympathetic to the argument), but that is not the reason given for removal, and Crossroads is being misleading for saying that. It was removed over editor prejudice over who is or isn't a real gay man, and that is not justified. (Note that Modern184 made other POV-pushing edits over other LGBT and sexuality-related articles; see this, for example). —AFreshStart (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
@OwenBlacker: @AFreshStart: My edit summary is entirely factual. It’s not prejudice to object to homosexuality being redefined out of existence. You’re literally saying that being gay is a form of prejudice and that being gay is transphobic, you’re both nothing but homophobes. None of my edits were “POV-pushing”, they were all based on the scientific definition of homosexuality. Modern184 (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@Modern184: Your transphobic rants are unhelpful and unacceptable, aside from being a breach of the Universal Code of Conduct; nobody is "redefining homosexuality out of existence". As a gay man myself, let alone part of the governance team of Wikimedia LGBT+, the idea that I'm a homophobe for resisting the attacks against trans people from a small minority is risible DARVO. Your "scientific definition of homosexuality" is a transphobic figment of your imagination and is POV pushing. Those edits are not welcome here. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@OwenBlacker: Thank you for putting my thoughts more eloquently than I could have done. —AFreshStart (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@Modern184: Your argument for why you're not POV-pushing very much betrays the fact that you are POV-pushing. Genuinely believing your POV to be true does not make it less of a POV. Yardenac (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The edit summary stated in part "A flag that is not widely used or even recognised is a not notable and is not needed", though I must say I hadn't noticed that the caption of the image that they removed included a bit about trans-inclusivity - which I did not expect because I've never heard of this flag being particularly noted for this over and above others. Crossroads -talk- 04:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@Crossroads: You appear to have overlooked the rest of the edit summary, which is an expansion of a common transphobic talking point. Modern184's insistence that people who disagree with him must be homophobes is a tired attempt at DARVO. He has no more right to determine who is and who is not a gay man than religious extremists have to determine their more moderate co-religionists are heretics. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh you're right. I didn't look that he removed a text talking about "gay vaginal sex", I assumed he was referring to the flag when removing the content. Tazuco (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
@OwenBlacker: Nothing I have said is remotely transphobic and I’m not trying to dictate who is and isn’t a gay man. By calling me transphobic for stating the definition of homosexuality, you’ve just proven my point. I didn’t call you a homophobe for disagreeing with me, I called you a homophobe for trying to redefine homosexuality out of existence and saying that being gay is prejudice. It’s a basic scientific fact that gay men don’t have or like vaginas. Modern184 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Modern184: You start by saying that you aren't trying to dictate who is or isn't a gay man and end by doing exactly that. If a trans man (who has a vagina) is attracted exclusively to men, are they a gay man? If not, what are they? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, there is no one flag which is widely used and recognized as a gay male pride flag. That fact that people have designed flags for various communities is interesting, but that doesn't mean they should be included in Wikipedia is they are not in actual use. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Tazuco, thank you for noticing me. I've noticed you as well. Are you and Ralpotem working together on redirects, by any chance? Going forward, in a case such as this, make sure that you remember both reasons given for an edit in an edit summary. That's more considerate and respectful than implying that an editor agreed with the edit for an inflammatory reason. One of the things Modern184 said is that "A flag that is not widely used or even recognised is a not notable and is not needed." I said I was saying I agreed with removing the flag, and that I had no comment on the edit summary. And, obviously, it's easy to see what part of the edit summary I was referring to. I wasn't going to discuss Modern184's personal beliefs expressed in the second half of his edit summary. They're immaterial to whether the image should be included. His mind is made up, and the discussion above shows that people's personal opinions on that subject don't contribute to the improvement of this article. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion
@Polycarpa aurata: I’m not dictating anything. Who is and isn’t a gay man isn’t a matter of opinion. The idea that genitals are irrelevant to sexuality is anti-science nonsense, if you don’t care about genitals then you’re bi/pan. A trans man with a vagina who’s exclusively attracted to men isn’t a gay man as he isn’t biologically male. Modern184 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
You really shouldn't be pushing your personal viewpoints as facts or "science". Science never defined what being gay is. Remember that a neutral point of view is a rule here, and you're very clearly not being neutral. 2601:1C0:8500:1161:6586:A758:6A65:700C (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Enlightenedstranger0: These aren’t “personal beliefs”, they’re scientific facts. Modern184 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Flag page

I started Draft:Gay men flags for archiving reliable sources. Can anybody help it with that? — Tazuco 02:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2022

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for a move. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) | never forget 07:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


Gay men → gay man – The title should be in the singular, like with the lesbian, not lesbians article. 99.101.56.68 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose/Keep as is. It was already suggested in the past and I agree with the comment from AFreshStart, sociological and demographic categories such as white people and Canadians are in plural, why not gay men and lesbians?! It should also be noted that in some languages, the lesbian article is used as a noun (i.e. es:lesbianismo; Q6649), so some may suggest the article should be male homosexuality (Q2257941). — Tazuco 22:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. Oppose, as per WP:NCPLURAL we should use plurals for Articles on religious, national, or ethnic groupings of people. I believe it is appropriate to apply this rule to articles on sexual groupings of people. Weak, because we have Lesbian, not Lesbians, Man, not Men, and Woman, not Women. BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCPLURAL. The article is about a class of people. Whether the class is identified by nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or a similar characteristic, the proper subject is the class as a whole, and the title should be plural.--Trystan (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm not an expert on describing how English is used, but there's something about the way that 'gay man' as a singular plural feels... wrong somehow? But on the other hand the singular form is more appropriate by virtue of the singular being the topic. SWinxy (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is aversion to gay men in "family-friendly" media "widespread"?

In the section "Representations of gay men in Western media" (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Gay_men#Representations_of_gay_men_in_Western_media) it says "There is currently a widespread view that depictions of gay men should be omitted from family-friendly entertainment ... [because] they almost invariably generate controversy." This strikes me as untrue or at least undemonstrable. The citation (155) gives an example of a case when a gay commercial generated controversy; this does not constitute a general societal attitude that gay men should not appear in "family-friendly" programming.

I wonder if the author is just applying his own view (that gay men should not be on TV) to the whole of society. Or maybe he is trying to point to what he sees as a bias in society, but if so it seems inaccurate as currently presented.

What do you think?

Spotter7 (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Spotter

Thank you, and I removed it. I believe it is a case of the latter - the author probably thought that was a societal flaw and cited the source as an example, rather than citing a source that supports the claim as Wikipedia requires. Also, the source was from 2010, and quite a bit has changed since then. Crossroads -talk- 00:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

"Vincian" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Vincian and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 8#Vincian until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Tazuco ✉️ 00:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Images

Hi @Louisianajones1978: please see Wikipedia:Image use policy (particularly the section on privacy rights) and Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines. Wikipedia is very cautious about outing. We can't just assume that a person is gay or a twink based on their appearance; we need some indication that they have publicly self-identified that way. As for the swimsuit picture, I think using it in this article might cause readers to assume the person depicted is a gay man. Cheers, gnu57 16:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: Thanks for bringing this to my attention, dear. I've replaced the suggested photo with an image of an openly bisexual trans man. Best, Louisianajones1978 (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Where are photo 

Maswikila (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. The Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum image is in the Americas section, not the Africa section. It would also be interesting to place the picture of pre-Columbian ceramic in the current place of Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum. --2804:2FB0:429:3500:8D52:F136:1F50:50CB (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023

Hello. I was surfing the web in search of facts and knowledge and soon enough I stumbled onto the gay men wiki. I was humouring myself reading through it up until I got to the carribean section. I noticed how in the information text for the jamaican rapper Buju Banton there is a very visible discrepancy that was ticking me off. That is all Ha1fdan (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2023 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Biased statistic?

Under the Eastern Europe section, it makes the point of saying how the majority of Orthodox Christians don't support homosexuality. IMO I feel like this might fall under WP:WEIGHT, or it should at least be moved to a section about Christian POVs or whatnot. When I deleted it, my edit was reverted and I didn't want to start an edit war. phrogge 'sup? edits 17:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

On Camp

Under the section camp, it makes a blanket claim that gay men have tried to distance themselves from the camp aesthetic. While some gay men have done so as expressed by the sources, there is no source on a widespread distancing from camp. Perhaps wording should be changed to “some gay men” instead of a blanket claim. WPhil435 (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

"Vincian" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Vincian has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14 § Vincian until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

AIDS crisis in the United States

The first paragraph is okay, but then it delves into the details of the epidemic and kind of leaves "gay men" out of the discussion. There's already a link to an in-depth article. Is the second paragraph necessary? Greyspeir (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel as if the second paragraph has a bit of excessive detail, but I do think that quite a bit of it should be kept. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Contentious/misleading statement:

This cleverly constructed statement:

For a time, the term gay was used as a synonym for anything related to homosexual men.

This statement gives the illusion that the term "gay" has always been meant to refer to a homosexual man, without mentioning that the term has historically been used to mean "happy" (or similar). The historical meaning should also be mentioned with respect to weight.2A00:23EE:2468:5629:D7DA:5F5A:C29D:581C (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks like this term sentence has been removed now. The article doesn't appear to mention the older definition, which I do think is quite important. We just have to avoid too much overlap from the gay article. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Gay (victor) Men's Pride Flag

Neither source provides a credit for the designer of this flag, or its widespread adoption by the group it is said to represent, so I question it being used here in any sort of definitive manner. Maybe "a gay men's pride flag". Greyspeir (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised that that flag is used in the article. Very few sources describe it, and it appear that the only ones that do are these lgbt flag fandom groups who have thousands of flags for some reason. Why not just use the regular rainbow pride flag? —Panamitsu (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@Greyspeir and @Panamitsu I removed it. In addition to the concerns above, it is not discussed in the article. S0091 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2024

Remove "pre-dates Christianity". Unnecesarry mention, as Christianity is not the bar in which every English speaker measures themself by. Biased mention. Christianity is a religion--personal and private and has nothing to do with the lives of homosexuals. 73.73.26.99 (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The reference appears perfectly appropriate in context: In cultures influenced by Abrahamic religions, the law and the church established sodomy as a transgression against divine law or a crime against nature. The condemnation of anal sex between males, however, predates Christian belief. Without that sentence, it is implied that the law and church were the first to deem anal sex between males unacceptable. Tollens (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Other info missing?

What about gay men in sports, Asian and other media, politics, etc? George Ho (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah there is a lot missing in this article—most notably, positivity. It’s so negative and depressing and ignores so much of the positive, cultural topics. Sports being one of them. Feel free to add a section and cite some sources. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 03:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a prude by any means, but...

...I don't think it does the cause any good to have 3 images of purported historical "gay sex" on the page. It reduces the concept to a merely sexual one. Also, I'm skeptical the Pre-Columbian image is even contextually appropriate as there is nothing in the image notes declaring it an image of gay men in particular, or even of two men, for that matter. Haven't we gone to great lengths to demonstrate that homosexual acts don't define gay men? Greyspeir (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

There is quite a bit that I don't agree with in that comment. I'll start by saying that the only 'cause' here is the creation of an encyclopaedia that (as neutrally as possible) reflects what reliable sources say about a subject. The fact that, as an editor, I may or may not also be a gay man must be irrelevant to what I contribute to this effort (full disclosure: I identify as a exclusively homosexual cismale human). Second, three images out of 34 in the article is about as far from reduc[ing] the concept to a merely sexual one as you can get! If anything, it's emasculating. Sexuality is a key element of gay men's experience (at least it has been for me). Being encyclopaedically neutral does not require being neutered. Lastly, those are sections about the historical views of gayness. It is anachronistic in the extreme to pretend that gay men (by whatever term may have been in use in the time and culture presented) were not at that time largely defined by, often celebrated in, and usually depicted through their sexual expression. To retroactively emasculate them is, in my view, highly disrespectful of the lived experience of millions of gay men throughout history -- including me. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
We can disagree on our philosophy then. I won't lose sleep. I do have a problem with some of the images being clearly "men engaging in homosexual acts" rather than images of "gay men". There is no indication in the sourcing of the images to indicate they are gay men. Greyspeir (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2024

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

The 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?

Shouldn'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)

Should we use a photo in the lede?

An 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)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gay_men/Archive_1&oldid=1259000414"