Talk:Gay

Recent revert

Junior5a, you recently reverted Collier09, with an edit summary that asserted that the edit was non-constructive editing. It wasn't. Be more careful with reverting in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyer22 Reborn, appreciated! Still not certain why the graf shouldn't be in the article Collier09 (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2017‎ (UTC)

Notice that Junior5a's page/account has been deleted. No longer in operation. Collier09 (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)‎

Collier09, Junior5a was recently active. Sometimes editors request to have their user page deleted, but remain active regardless.

On a side note: Make sure that you are indenting your talk page posts and are signing them with four tildes (not three). I indented your above posts and added the timestamps to them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks you for your help. Followed your instructions.Collier09 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted Figurefour44 with this edit for reasons that should be obvious. Figurefour44 talks about "invalid." His content removal was invalid, and I see that he's been reverted at other articles for such editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

What the heck is SAGE and why should Wikipedia care what they allow? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I immediately thought of SAGE Publications. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Evolution of words, should it be allowed?

Why can words evolve to a point that dictionary and encyclopedias update the word's meaning away from it's original meaning? A word has a meaning, slang and profanity is not supposed to be adopted as this destroys order. H2O is water, can I just decide H2O means Beastiality and get enough people to agree to that so it becomes changed in the dictionary? I don't think that should be possible but it appears that it is. 50.35.106.46 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article, not the subject. Adam9007 (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

I'm part of the lgbtq community and theres false info on this page about the lgbtq community i would like to change the date of this page. :) Adamwishington (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, we can't help unless you say exactly what change you are looking for. "I want to change something" is not specific; requests should be something like "please change X to Y". rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Should this page be put in Category:Happiness?

Isn't this article about the word (not the concept) in general, not just the homosexual meaning? Apparently, happy is the "wrong" meaning here, even though a good deal of the article is about that sense. I think it would be wrong to categorise it purely by the homosexual sense, rather than all meanings. Adam9007 (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. This article – as clearly stated in the opening sentence, demonstrated by the infobox, and elaborated on for pretty much the entirety of the article – is about the modern sense of the word relating to sexuality, and how it developed. It is not an article about an emotion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Nor is this article actually about homosexuality. It's about a word with multiple meanings (all of which are covered in the article). Adam9007 (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Aren't you the one who just argued that it wasn't about a concept? Then why are you trying to put it into a conceptual category? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles in that category which are not about a concept, such as World Happiness Council. Adam9007 (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Category:Same-sex sexuality is a conceptual category too. Adam9007 (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

If you consider (as I do) categories to be navigation aids for Wikipedia's readers, it's hard to imagine how placing this article in Category:Happiness is going to help anyone find anything they're looking for. The scope of the article is essentially the evolution of the word's meaning and usage, with a focus on its primary meaning. In that context, it discusses both earlier and recent usages, but they're not main topics of the article. Besides, do you see any articles about adjectives in the category? I don't. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 12:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentences re definition are plainly wrong.

   "Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual."

Nonsense. Consult any reputable dictionary. G.C.Merriam's online dictionary for example, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay gives this as the FOURTH definition.

   "The term was originally used to mean 'carefree', 'happy', or 'bright and showy'."

This implies that these senses are archaic which is an implicit lie. This is still the primary sense. Again, consult any reputable dictionary.

I think the idea here is to have an article about the use of the word "gay" in senses related to homosexuality. Then it should simply say so, instead of making false assertions about the English language. I'd fix this if it weren't locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That's the reason this page is locked, to prevent sweeping changes from people without reaching consensus. On your point, I disagree, wholeheartedly. Though the dictionary may list it first, that doesn't mean that it's the most common use colloquially. I think if you ask most people today in the English speaking world what first comes to mind when you say "GAY" you're going to hear something about homosexuality. In fact, Dictonary.com even discusses this. PureRED (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster, which I cited, is probably the most well regarded serious dictionary by any U.S. publisher. To pretend that the first definition it gives is not modern English usage is dishonest. Apparently even the site you cite, dictionary.com, gave the primary sense as "merry, lively" at least as recently as 2010. ( https://English.stackexchange.com/questions/2772/does-gay-still-include-the-meaning-merry ) although I'd scarcely regard it with equal respect. Anyone who believes that that senses related to "cheerful" are archaic and not a part of modern English, clearly derives their knowledge of English exclusively from either pop culture usage in their own intellectually limited clique or from some prescriptive rather than descriptive, agenda-driven notions of diction. As this article stands now it implies that senses related to homosexuality are the ONLY legitimate usages of the word. Locking in nonsense like that makes Wikipedia look silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The "nonsense" isn't being locked in, it's being prevented from being changed without establishing a consensus to change it.

I wouldn't argue that the "cheerful" definition is archaic, but I would agree with PureRED that in this day and age, at least in North America, it's no longer the way in which the word "gay" is most commonly used. I don't believe we can simply use the order in which the definitions appear in a dictionary, as that sounds like our own interpretation. Did you actually read the link provided, which states, in part, "The meaning “homosexual” for the word gay has become so prevalent that people hesitate to use the term in its original senses of “merry, lively” and “bright or showy.” DonIago (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to know whether this is trolling or simple misunderstanding, but I'll assume the latter. There's an old adage: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". While there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the article will be changed to suit the OP's liking, their arguments are wrong in almost every particular, so let's address them briefly before putting the topic to bed.

The unabridged Merriam-Webster, upon which the various abridged versions of M-W are based, was last updated more than half a century ago—and not to universal acclaim, to put it mildly. Its several newer, shorter derivatives tend to share the permissiveness (some would say sloppiness) of their progenitor. They do get updated, but not with any great consistency or speed. For instance, the M-W Learner's Dictionary, whose intended audience is non-native English speakers, does list "gay" in the everyday modern sense first, while the M-W Collegiate Dictionary does not. Perhaps the good editors over at M-W see no urgency when it comes to advising an audience of principally native English speakers, assuming (correctly, I think) that most of them haven't been living under a rock for the past fifty years. In any case, of eight major dictionaries with online portals, six list the first definition of "gay" to be the one matching the topic of this article. This includes American Heritage, which remains more cautious with its definitions than M-W.

Having said all that, I'm not quite credulous to believe that the OP actually is suggesting that the old definition of the word is actually in common usage in the 21st century. We encounter it in still-relevant old books and movies, but its usage in everyday writing (formal or informal) and speech is close to nil. Is that really up for debate? Perhaps the OP would like to suggest that Niceness be changed so that instead of redirecting to Kindness it redirects to Ignorance. That would honor the original meaning of the word, after all.

And having said that, I'll now say it's pretty much beside the point. Wikipedia's article titles aren't determined based on word definitions but rather on topic. Noting the former usage of the word and then quickly moving on, as the article does, is entirely appropriate, and the current wording appears to be accurate. In the absence of a specific, constructive suggestion for revised wording, I think we can consider this resolved. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Well said. This is a word article, but WP:WORDISSUBJECT makes clear the following: "As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." Also, the article is clear about the shift in terminology. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

"Did you actually read the link provided . . . showy."[sic] -DonIago I presume that's intended as a question, despite the punctuation. Yes, I did.

"It's hard to know whether this is trolling or simple misunderstanding . . ." -Rivertorch

It's hard to know whether this is a deliberate insult or simple inability to understand that these aren't the only alternatives.

"The unabridged Merriam-Webster, upon which the various abridged versions of M-W are based, was last updated more than half a century ago . . ."

You refer to to the 1961 edition of the Third New International, often called the MW3, which is quite disingenuous, since I specifically cited the online product.

Referring to other G & C Merriam dictionaries collectively as "the various abridged versions" is completely wrong, as even a casual perusal of the article Merriam-Webster here on Wikipedia will demonstrate. The online product is described by G & C Merriam as "the successor to . . . [the] Third New International Dictionary." ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/about-us/faq ) but was ORIGINALLY based, not on the 1961 MW3, but the 2003 11th Collegiate, which has been independent of the MW3, since the 9th edition in 1983.

Although originally based on the 2003 Collegiate, the online product is explicitly claimed to be "regularly updated" & the most current product. ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/about-us/faq )

"the old definition . . . usage in everyday writing (formal or informal) and speech is close to nil." In current published writing which is aimed at a wide audience, it has indeed become rare in any context where there is any possibility of misunderstanding (which if you think about it, you'll see is MOST contexts, and you'll see WHY any possible ambiguity is avoided), but even there it is still extant in conventional phrases where the meaning has no reasonably possible ambiguity, such as "Gay Paris" or "Gay Nineties". In conversational speech, I don't agree at all. It probably varies quite a bit by region, by age, and by educational level. Certainly I hear it often enough that it isn't remarkable or surprising. If most of your conversationalists are West Virginia high school students, YMMV. It may have escaped your attention, but the English language is not the exclusive possession of people under 50.

"Perhaps the OP would like to suggest that Niceness be changed so that instead of redirecting to Kindness it redirects to Ignorance." You think that bit of sarcasm is clever?!? It's merely sophomoric.

"In the absence of a specific, constructive suggestion for revised wording, I think we can consider this resolved." I indicated 2 possible alternatives fairly clearly I thought, but I'll make them explicit:

Preferably:

A. Change the first 2 sentences after the intro

from:

'Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual. The term was originally used to mean "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy".'

to:

'"Gay", in current English usage, is most often used to refer to a homosexual man or boy, or, more broadly, a homosexual of either sex, or qualities relating thereto. The original meaning of "cheerful" was the most prevalent sense until approximately the 1970s, but is now less common.'

This removes the false implication that the historically central meaning is extinct. It also makes clear that the statement is about the frequency of usage, eliminating the slight ambiguity inherent in the word "primary".

Or, as a poor second:

B- Change the lead sentence in the intro from:

"This article is about gay as an English-language term."

to:

"This article is about the word "gay" as used in senses pertaining to sexual orientation."

The homosexual sense is absolutely the primary sense today. Currently there is already consensus for that. If OP wants to provide evidence otherwise, I'd suggest crawling a text corpus or speech corpus for instances of the word and counting up how many times it's used in each sense. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

___

References