Talk:Bisexual chic/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Bisexual chic (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 >

Contents

Facts?

This looks a lot like a personal essay than anything else by an anon: See history of this article. Wikipedia:No original research applies? Maybe an articles justified but it needs a lot more cites and NPOV. Probably better to just redirect and merge to Bisexuality. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Catamorphism 18:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

--I guess you weren't in high school in the last two or three years? It probably should be merged with bisexuality, but there's a lot of truth there.

I never went to high school, but I don't think that has any bearing on whether this article needs to conform to the citation policy that applies to all articles on Wikipedia. Catamorphism 06:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Bisexual chic is a very definite societal trend. I don't doubt that bisexual chic should be covered in an article on bisexuality, but I disagree with merging it. I have revamped the article, adding to it considerably, trying to maintain a more NPOV and providing references. Can we take the flags off now, or does it need more work? Iamvered 06:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not perfect (I added a few {{fact}} tags), but it's much better now. I think it would be reasonable to take the flag off. Catamorphism 20:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Article cleaned up

I have provided appropriate documentation and straightened out (!) the POV on the article. I hope it suffices. If not, somebody slap the DISPUTED tag back on it, and we'll keep cracking at it! Iamvered 03:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The OC

I'm not sure if it makes any sense to say "The OC" has the first visibly bisexual character in network history. What about Sandra Bernhard on "Roseanne"? Since that's mentioned in the same article, I think the historical first mention should probably be taken off. --Amynewyork4248

I agree, and will do. Iamvered 21:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What needs fixing?

This article has been tagged for cleanup and original research. Would someone please indicate specifically what areas need attention, and I will make appropriate edits. Thanks! Iamvered 21:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am currently moving through the backlog of pages tagged as original research. Frankly I can't see why it has been tagged. You can untag it if you want to, I see no reason why not. I will not do it myself though because I am unsure of why it was placed there to begin with. Maybe the references should all be listed below and not just the published ones. It is fine that they are in the text itself but I think it would deter people from tagging it as original research if the article listed them as external references as well. There seems to be some active interest in this article so I say let the article grow and more sources will eventually make their way into the article. Seems like a notable term. MartinDK 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with above so I am removing the "original research" tag now. May I ask that if anyone feels it was removed precipitously that they please assume good faith and first contact persons who have/are working on the article citing specific concerns. CyntWorkStuff 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Need to discuss on Talk page and gender Double standard on bisexuality

I) Editors should write on talk page before they make serious changes on the page, changes that seriously change content.

II) There is a clear double standard in the 2000s. It is acceptable for a woman to be a bisexual; if a man is a bisexual, he is accused of not having two affinities but of being a closeted gay man. This is an issue of fairness and consistency. Arbol25 08:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.