Talk:Gay/Archive 4

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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Early Usage of word Gay

I just want to add this info to the section about the usage of the word "Gay," but I'm not able to edit the page. Also, I wasn't sure where to put it, or how to word it. I thought it would be useful, so if someone can add it, that would be nice. Thanks. (to verify, you can check this website with the date & lyrics: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dfox/porterlyrics.html)

Here's the information"

Cole Porter's 1941 musical, "Let's Face It" explicitly uses the word "gay" in both a homosexual and a non-sexual sense. Lyrics for the song "Farming" repeatedly describe many celebrities engaging in rural activities because it makes them feel "glamorous and gay" (i.e. happy), and then includes the verse:

"Don't inquire of Georgie Raft Why his cow has never calfed, Georgie's bull is beautiful, but he's gay!"

Since this usage is early, and totally unambiguous, and shows how the word was understood to mean both things, I thought it would be useful for this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raindeerroom (talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gay is a word used in many insulting ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.20.61 (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can't gayness redirect here?

TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It can if you want it too. Create a redirect. Paul B (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, actually it can't. Don't believe me? Try to make the redirect yourself. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been used as an attack page in the past. East718 protected it because of this. You might want to ask User:East718 to redirect it. The page should be kept under protection. forestPIG 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, whoever protected this page from re-creation must have had a damn good reason why it can't redirect to this article. And I'd really wanna know what that reason is. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't fret too much about the gayness. I'm sure East718 will redirect it for you. forestPIG 00:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't that much big of a deal anyway. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

Why doesn't the image in the lead, currently the drawing from Punch, illustrate the modern usage? Hyacinth (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Meanings of "gay"

This article is seriously flawed. It skips through the original meaning, and the bulk of the article is "gay means homosexual". Considering the length of usage of the "carefree" meaning, the article needs to be changed to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.190.156 (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What would you prefer the article structure look like? Hyacinth (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Opression

I think we should discuss the opression of gays in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy2boy (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Gay article is more about the term (including Gay referring to homosexual people), Homosexuality (And Anti-LGBT disambiguation page) has more information about oppression of gays.) User0529 (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there are examples of gays being oppressed, but a lot of the subjective feeling of "being oppressed" is due, Donald Black explains in Escape the Gay Straitjacket, to gay men repressing their anger and not being able to stand up for themselves because of this, hence his use of the phrase "gay straitjacket" for the helplessness gay men feel.Andrenapier (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the definition as rubbish, assuming it doesn't have a homophobic connotation is denying the current social atmosphere towards homosexual (men) in a UK and North American context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.247.116 (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

uncited paragraph

I've removed the following:

The usage of the word "gay" changed mid 20th century and was adopted from the British argot (code language) Polari. The word "gay" used in context to connote "homosexual" allowed for extensive double entendre and innuendo. This practice continued even as late as the 1970s; in a television advertising campaign for the Bic Banana ink crayon, Charles Nelson Reilly sings, "the colors are so bright and gay!" The word "gay" here does double duty, referring both to the brightness of the ink, and as an obvious insider commentary on Reilly himself.

The assertion that the sexual meaning originated in Polari is uncited, and inconsistent with the more common claims of US origin. The 1970s ad may well have used double-entendre, but again it's uncited and its also possible that it simply continued the traditional meaning, which was certainly still commonplace in the UK in the 70s. We would need more evidence. Paul B (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the article

Was wondering something...

Is this article about the word "gay" and its usage over time? Or is it about homosexuals and homosexuality? If it's the former, then the article needs to be rewritten as it focuses far too heavily on the gay=homosexual aspect. If it's the latter, then perhaps a separate "history of the word gay" article should be created? I would suggest the disambiguation page, but the "gay equals homosexual" take seems to dominate there too! Dr Rgne (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that people should except gays for how they treated that person before they found out they were gay. If they cant except you then they arent a true friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.137.141 (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Weasel words

Does "the words gay man and lesbian are the most recommended words" amount to use of weasel words within Wikipedia's meaning? Recommended by whom? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Nobody has responded to the above suggestion in nearly a month. It seems to me that the statement in question is subjective and not a matter of encyclopedic fact, so I have removed it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Gay as a noun

Gay as a noun can be used for a male or female person:

"Gay–noun 7. a homosexual person, esp. a male." -Dictionary.com

I just wanted to say that because in the article it implies that gay as a noun is always used for males only. That's not necessarily true, although it is sometimes. Lesbians can be properly called gays, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frisky porcupine (talk • contribs) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

citation tag

the page contradicts itself. "occasionally a noun) that refers primarily to" Now first you say it is occasionaly a noun, and then it primarily refers to such. It may very well be a reference to homosexuality, but such terms as primarily and occasionaly are subjective, especially if not corroborated. That becomes synthesis. Lihaas (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the contradiction? It is occassionally a noun. When it is it refers primarily to X. No contradiction. Please do not engage in tendentious editing. Novel synthesis is what WP:OR refers to, not statements that are not disputed. Paul B (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Gays (n) and lesbians sometimes edit Wikipedia. Not sure what's confusing about that. Lihaas, is it just the quality in the Gay and Lesbian articles that you're very concerned about, or does your anxiety about accuracy in the English language extend to other topics? It would be helpful for you to do some searching for citations to help these articles rather than point out their flaws for other editors to clean up. We are a community, but that doesn't mean a single editor's specific task is to determine where everyone else needs to work. --Moni3 (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Article cleanup

A whole lot of issues here. Firstly, the vast majority of this article, and particularly the homosexual stuff, is uncited and seeming POV. Secondly, this article is about the term and its related usage. All mentions of a homosexual culture and orientation can be shifted to the gay culture page (in itself a misnomer, but never mind) Lihaas (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

rubbish

The sentence "In the UK, this connation, among younger generations of speakers had a non-sexual derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in "That's so gay.")." should include North America too, because that's all you hear in the schools. E.g. "Stop being gay" if people are being annoying, etc. Its not just in the UK.Isaid9 (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, done —EqualRights (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening of "Gay" page

The opening of the Gay page includes an inappropriate epithet, which I'm assuming replaced the word gay.

The term FAGGOT was originally used, until the mid-20th century, to refer to feelings of being "carefree," "happy," or "bright and showy"; it had also come to acquire some sexual connotations as early as 1637[1].

I think it should probably be switched and perhaps protected so it does not again get changed as it's not only a very offensive word, it's poorly worded in its current construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjwelsh72 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 November 2008 UTC

The epithet you mentioned was added in an act of vandalism, and the edit has been reverted. It says "Gay" now, as it should. You can revert vandalism yourself, if you feel comfortable doing so. In fact, every editor is encouraged to revert obvious vandalism on sight. However, if you are not sure it's vandalism, then it would be better to let a more experienced editor deal with it until you become sufficiently experienced yourself. This article, as do others, attracts vandalism. But to fully protect the article, unless the level of vandalism is rather high, prevents most editors from contributing constructively. It's currently semi protected to keep anonymous editors from editing it.

I'm adding a welcome message on your talk page which provides some help resources. If you have any questions, please ask. Thank you.

— Becksguy (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Change in usage of the word in the late 1960s

"In any case, the earlier usage of 'gay' as happy or jubilant has fallen out of favour in conjunction with the new usage's prominence." - Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A412570.

This extract is just one source that confirms what is commonly known. Namely that usage of the word "gay" in its original meaning started to diminish after the word became common parlance for homosexual - in the mid-late 1960s. Thank you. Davidpatrick (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read the source. But the sentence you have reproduced doesn't prove any of the causality that you are implying in the article. It just says that a) its use as "happy" decreased, b) its use as "homosexual" increased, and b) these things happened at more or less the same time ("in conjunction"). That doesn't mean that one caused the other (which is what you imply in your wording, "resulted in a decrease"). Long story short: it doesn't say why "gay" lost its original meaning, it only says that "gay" lost its original meaning. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, why are we even discussing this? The ref that you are extrapolating this stuff from is an article from the anyone-can-edit website h2g2. As far as I can tell, citing this site is no better than citing another Wikipedia article. If I don't get a response about that within 24 hours, I'm going to move that site to External links, where it belongs. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Polizer, don't you think this is rather silly. We aren't supposed to be playing games here. We all know that vthe deline in the original meaning was caused by the new meaning. Citations are demanded for matters that might be in dispute, not because someone has decided to question something that is not in dispute but difficult to cite since cause cannot be directly proven. We are trying to edit to improve the encyclopdia not to win a manufactured argument. Paul B (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Who says we all know the decline in the original meaning was caused by the new meaning? There are hundreds of reasons a word can undergo semantic drift. Don't assume that something is "not in dispute" just because you accept it. If people can't provide a reference for this, it needs to go, simple as that. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No, there are not hundreds of reasons and this is not a case of "semantic drift" in the normal meaning of the term (the original meaning remains unchanged), but a wholly new meaning that entirely distinct from the earlier one. There is no other remotely plausible cause of the decline in the use of the orignal meaning. You know it and I know it and you are playing games. You are also wrong about the issue of citation, as I have stated. Frankly this kind of childishness is one of the worst aspects of trying to improve articles. Paul B (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't "know it," but thanks for trying to tell me what I do and don't know. As for the "issue of citation," I assume you're implying that I'm wrong about needing a citation for this kind of argument, but I'm not even going to address that because there are so many different ways people try to interpret "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" in WP:V. All I can say is that I have no desire to deal with an editor who looks at a good-faith attempt to be critical about our sources and calls it "childish"; characterizing a legitimate editor's concern in that way is quite offensive, an editor with over 30,000 edits should know better. Incidentally, an editor with over 30,000 edits should also know better than to assume that his opinion and intuition about etymology is a suitable replacement for reliable sources. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If the article is trying to make a point that the use of "gay" as happy has diminished since the word as a synonym for homosexual, that should be a strong point. And all strong points should be well-cited. Let me see if I can find an fortress of a source to say just that. --Moni3 (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be good sourcing for a causal statement such as that. "You know it and I know it" is not sufficient. Aleta ^Sing 00:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Lavender-Lexicon-Authenticity-Appropriation/dp/2884491813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227621653&sr=8-1 This book] is something I wish to get hold of. I don't have access to it, but I might in a week or so. If anyone else here can get it, looks like it would answer the missing link. --Moni3 (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Until someone gets a hold of it, I'll at least throw it in under Further reading. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have an article titled "Gay and Lesbian Language" from the Annual Review of Anthropology written in 2000. It references the book I mentioned above, and surprisingly also references Donald Webster Cory's 1951 book The Homosexual in America, which I do have access to. There is a chapter about gay slang in it. I'll check on that. --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

spelling error

Resolved

– Fixed. -- Banjeboi 14:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

caption under the flag to the right: The behide is a rainbow flag of LGBT]] It should be "The background behind is a rainbow flag of LGBT."

Pic in lede

I don't think the current pic is appropriate for the lede. As the lede and the article indicate, the word gay only connoted homosexuality for a short period of time compared to how long the word has been in existence. I would have moved the pic down to the section that discusses the term when it evolved to a reference to homosexuality but that part is already "pictured". I would have been bold and just removed it but I realize that this issue in general is somewhat contentious and someone might get the impression that I have some sort of censor-like agenda. That's not the case; I just think the pic, which only represents one of the word's uses, should not be in the lede. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno... you're right that "gay" means a lot of other things, but I think there's no doubt that its meaning relating to homosexuality and the gay movement is the most notable, and the thing that people are looking for when they come to this article. If "gay" hadn't started meaning "homosexual," this article wouldn't exist. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 03:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't have an article on the word "carefree". We have an article called that (Carefree), but it's disambiguation page to articles about films, products and other notable items with that word as a name. We don't do articles about words as such. Gay would just be one word, along with others with similar meanings, were it not for the link to homosexuality. Paul B (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You guys are 100% right, but the fact that it's most notable for its attachment to homosexuality is the very reason for not having the pic. Let me explain: The reason why "Gay" does not redirect to homosexuality is because the term gay does not necessarily mean homosexuality. Thus, the whole point of the article is to establish that "gay" has not always meant homosexuality and it's most contemporary usage ("this broken toaster is so gay") also moves away from its notable usage. So by using the "gay pic" in the lede we are sorta contradicting the whole point of the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that that picture is not needed, especially in the lead section. --Tom 16:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A weak argument. The overwhelming majority of this article is the evolution of the link to homosexuality. Even the "this broken toaster is so gay" usage derives from that, and is anyway impossible to illustrate (are you going to depict a "gay" broken toaster?). MoS clearly states that the article should start with an image or infobox, so the current image is an obvious choice. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What about using the poster for The Gay Divorcee? It uses gay as the term "merry" with the double entendre meaning homosexual. It would then illustrate the mutable definition of the word. --Moni3 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a clever idea, but I'm afraid it's too clever. Readers will be like "huh?". I would prefer no pic like Tom, but if there must be a pic I would be fine with Moni's proposal.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no known double entendre in that film as far as I'm aware (it would have been very obscure to most people in the 30s if there were). The divorcees are both straight. Paul B (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have The Celluloid Closet at home. I think I might be able to provide a citation for a double entendre. The caption can make the point that the usage of the word has changed. --Moni3 (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the image has been changed since Brewcrewer first posted this section. While I disagreed that there shouldn't be a "gay" image in the lede, I did agree that the image there at the time was inappropriate. So I changed it to a more appropriate one. One of my stalkers decided to bring our issue to this article, and reverted my change, then removed the lede image altogether. Paul Barlow came and restored the original image that is there now. Just clarifying for those who didn't look at the history of the article itself. Regardless, I still don't agree that the current image is appropriate, mostly because it's not just the rainbow flag, which is the universal symbol but some home-made image with a lambda splat down in the center. Additionally, it does impart a little POV. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

I have been involved in multiple AfD discussions regarding terminology-related articles, one of which this happens to be. WP:NAD and WP:NOTDICDEF are popular hammers, and articles like this are popular nails. In such debates, I have normally defended these articles; I agree with James Hillman that words aren't made-up trivialities, but rather are both objects and subjects—"personal presences which have whole mythologies," he writes—and therefore have qualities that cannot be conveyed through dictionary pragmatics and that, therefore, can be expressed on Wikipedia without violating its not-a-dictionary policies. Or, as WP:NOTDICDEF itself says, "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." But alas, deletionists place more weight on the clause that follows: "...but encyclopedia articles do not usually contain multiple distinct definitions or usages of a term." WP:NAD also has a relatively new definition of a dictionary definition: "the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote" (in contrast with an encyclopedia article, which is deemed to be more topically unified). My point (at long last) is that this article is largely about the term "gay" per se, and that it covers many of the term's denotations. Therefore, it is arguably (although not in my opinion) in violation of WP:NOTDICDEF and WP:NAD, and it is a potential candidate for deletion. However, because the term itself is indisputably notable, and because it is synonymous with the names of many other articles (e.g., homosexuality, homosexual orientation, gay community, LGBT culture), this page could easily be turned into a disambiguation page that directs readers to such articles. The disambiguation page could also contain a mention of the perjorative sense in which the word is used (e.g., "that's so gay") but would primarily be a guide to articles dealing with the respectful use of the term. I am inclined to leave the page as-is—it already contains much more than one would expect in a dictionary—but, judging from past experience with AfD, I'd suggest that the only way to safeguard the article from AfD nomination (and, in light of the new WP:NAD wording, from plausible deletion) would be to convert it into a disambiguation page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Practically speaking, there's absolutely no chance gay will be deleted from WP.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you're right, although I've seen some pretty fierce deletionist arguments. Some excellent content has popped up at AfD, and elsewhere I saw a serious Wikipedian argue that a featured article (namely Macedonia (terminology)) ought to be deleted per WP:NAD! Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In any event, Terminology of homosexuality is probably much more vulnerable than Gay. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Have Nigger or Faggot (slang) ever been AfD'ed? I think those are comparable articles and, just like this, would be pretty impossible to delete... rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 12:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This article doesnt make sense. There is already a homosexuality article. Plus LGBT and Queer studies template links here. Why is ealier uses of the term relevant to that template? Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's an article that people look at over 4000 times a day, so it's clearly something that people are searching for. (And yes, I know there's WP:POPULARPAGE, but still.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Then maybe earlier uses of gay and the pejorative non-sexualized usage can be moved into a new article like gay (other uses). Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, most of the article is already about the term "gay" rather than about homosexuality in general. With the exception of the Sexual orientation section, everything appears to be about how the term is used. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So isnt there WP:UNDUE to other uses? The primary usage of the term in modern times is clear. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The primary usage of term is about homosexual males and can sometimes refer to homosexual females. This gay article should be somewhat similar to Lesbian. However it isnt. It gives WP:UNDUE weight to other uses like historic uses or high school uses. Therefore I propose those other uses to be moved into another article such as Gay (other uses). This article can be expanded with gay issues being mentioned in the article instead of mentioning defunct early 20th century uses of the term. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno...the pejorative "high school use" (although really people much older than that still use it) is quite common and, I think, pretty significant to the understanding and discussion of this word. As for the defunct historical use, there's only a very short section on that, and the long section that follows is more about how it changed to acquire its current meaning. There is no doubt that the Lesbian article is far better than this one and is a good model to follow, but personally I don't see any sections in this article that don't belong there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the primary usage of gay? It is not the high school usage (it is largely high school). It isnt the defunct early 20th century usage. Plus Wikipedia English is not Wikipedia US. Gay means gay/homosexual in many other languages as well. For example, most Germans would be familiar with gay/homosexual but not the high school usage. After moving defunct and high school uses of gay from this article we can notify readers such as this article refers to gay as homosexual, for other uses see: etc on top of the article. And then we can merge gay community into this article. Issues about homosexuality seems very fragmented in Wikipedia. Eg: see: Talk:Homosexuality#Merger_proposal Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can go back and forth as much as we want, and I doubt either of us really has sources for this, but I'm pretty certain that lots of people beyond high school use "that's so gay" and similar versions. I have even caught myself using "gay" in that way in the not-too-distant past, thanks to having been surrounded by it for so many years. And regardless of how many times it is uttered or by how many people, I think it's still significant in the effects it has (just like how pejorative uses of "nigger" would still be main-article-worthy even if hardly anyone said it anymore). But anyway, I'll wait to hear what some others have to say. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is 'nigger' isnt mentioned in Black_people article. I'm not saying high school usage isnt notable. I'm just saying it should be moved. And this is a discussion. If other people agrees, we can indeed do that so we have the resources for that. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A ha. This has nothing to do with anything, but I wrote the Lesbian article and posted it 2 days ago or so. Someone noticed! Yay! --Moni3 (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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 ^talk/_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✰ ^echo 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 ^talk/_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▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't be gay, the LGBT flag doesn't belong on an article about the term "gay" in general. Just leave it off unless you want the flags for projects covering youth culture, linguistics, South Park, everything else where the word "gay" means "rubbish". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2010 (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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy I indicated above. - Epson291 (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was the most common or predominant, and I don't think it matters terribly whether it is or not. Despite its intended status of being way more up-to-date than other encyclopedias, WP probably shouldn't base its naming conventions on what's au courant within age-related subcultures. We need some stability, after all. ~~(Not sure what I said that "is not true", btw; could you clarify?)~~ Rivertorch (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: I'm very confused on who is adressing who. I was specifically adressing HiLo48 on that point. - Epson291 (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you indented too far. Fixed that and struck my now irrelevant request. Rivertorch (talk) 18:01, 24 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 ^talk/_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 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). Wikipedia should reflect that. Maybe it should even try to reflect the very nature of this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is that there is more than one meaning for the word gay, both past and present (which you have indicated). Unless there is one "primary topic" for the word, it needs to be disambugated. This is according to WP:NC#Disambiguation. This means, when someitmes types in gay into the search box, it is a disambugation page that comes up, with the appropriate links to homosexual (one of the common usage's for this word), along with this page here on the actual word itself, which includes its usage as a pejorative adjective. - Epson291 (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The article title is problematic because it's primarily an adjective, it's true, but it's hard to imagine that the sexual-orientation sense of the word isn't what most people are looking for if they arrive here via the search box. For those who were after another meaning, the hat notes seem quite adequate. Rivertorch (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Split article

I've split the article into three pages. One on gays, another on gay as a word, and another on gay as a given name. Before, there was no article on gay people, seperate from homosexuality (ex. Christian from Christianity, Muslim from Islam). Taking into account what HiLo48 and Rivertorch were saying above, if "gay" primarily refers to gay people, it should remain here (I think it does, verus a slang word). Otherwise, we can perhaps move it to gays, gay people, gay (identity) or something like that, and disambiguate gay. - Epson291 (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And I have reverted these bold and seemingly disputed changes. Please gain a consensus on the way forward which serves our readers. This is a contentious subject area so we should err a bit on the cautious side. -- Banjeboi 20:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Then let's have "gay" as a disambiguation page. There needs to be an article on gays as a soical/sexual identity. - Epson291 (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for these changes. "gay" as an identity is simply the same as "homosexual". It's not a distinct concept. This article should cover the full hitory of the word and its interrelated usages. That is its only useful purpose. Paul B (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Paul (and the consensus of past iterations of this same discussion). The article should be about the word "gay", not about the gay community. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a mixed up article. While it does discuss the history of the word and its various current meanings, it also has solid slabs on the gay community and what bodies like the American Psychological Association say about homosexuality. It goes too far into that discussion to be just about the meanings of the word. I think that's what Epson291 was trying to clear up. While I may have used a different approach, Epson291's goal was worthwhile. At the moment the article is a mess. It doesn't know what it is. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Then the solution is probably to excise those bits (and move them to more appropriate articles) rather than to redefine the scope of this article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting redefining the scope of this article. I was suggesting splitting it 3 ways and leaving the scope of this article intact. - Epson291 (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you game to have a go? (Without upsetting anyone? ;-) Very sensitive area. ) HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

First things first. If you see "gay" as only a sexual orientation (or behaviour), then I agree it is the same as homosexuality, and there is no need to have an independent article. But being "gay" can also be looked at as a sexual/social identity, i.e., how people who practice homosexuality view themselves (their identity) and community, (for example gay culture). For example, same gender loving, queer, same-sex attraction, bi-curious, questioning, may all practice homosexuality, but not identify as gay. The two aren't mutually exclusive. All of these other identies have their own article except for the most common one, "gay". Second, the way this article reads now is like a jumble of three different articles mashed into one. The first is on "gay" as a word, including its history and different usages (including the homosexual one). The second on "gay" in relationship to orientation and identity (example the APA given above or about people who consider themselves gay but don't have homosexual sex -- which has more to do with identity then a term that refers to homosexual people). And the third is on gay as a given name. - Epson291 (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And the other problem is irelevent on whether gay (the homosexual one) should be it's own article. The point is, a great many people who type in gay into the search box are looking for information on gay, as in, another word for homosexual, not for information on the term. So in my reading of WP:NC#disambiguation, unless there is one primary usage of the word, the word itself should be a disambiguation page, which means this page should be disambiguated. - Epson291 (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Rjanag. We've got hat notes and wiki links galore. Anyone arriving here with functional vision and a mouse will be able to find exactly where to go if the info they're after isn't here. (This also applies to those who have their sexual orientation down pat and need no further practice.) In any event, while I'm a bit fuzzy on what exactly the split proposal would entail, I don't see a burning need for it in the first place. Maybe I'm missing something, but the word history and the modern usage are both very important—and interrelated—and properly constitute the major parts of the article currently. Rivertorch (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(Deindent) The split proposes three articles, 1) gay (word), 2) gay (sexuality), gay (sexual identity) or just homosexual, and 3) gay (given name), all which would be found at a disambiguation page at gay (currently at gay (disambiguation)). This also doesn't mean gay (word) wouldn't cover the modern usage of the word as it already does, it just wouldn't be an article on "gay" as a sexual orientation identity, which has nothing to do with the word's usage, outside of saying that's what it refers to. As for the hat notes/wiki notes, I agree that anyone with functional vision can find them, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether an article on what "gay" means as a word is or is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and inline with WP:NC#Disambiguation. I would say just as many people searching for "gay" are searching for homosexual rather then a definition and history/usage lesson of the word. The issue isn't whether people can link to homosexuality once they get here, but rather the presumption that an article on the history of the word gay is the "primary topic." I am proposing it's is disambiguated, because WP:NC#Disambiguation states that "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. Otherwise that title cannot be used for the article without disambiguation." - Epson291 (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I now understand what you're proposing. I don't support such a split because I don't see the need for three separate articles. Except in the third case, which is peripherally (at best) related to the other two, the first two meanings you've identified are tied up with each other in a way that lends itself to treatment within one article. If there's consensus that the focus of Gay is currently wrong (which I don't think there is, but it's certainly arguable), then a more functional solution might be to refocus it a bit instead of splitting it up. But the article isn't overly long, and if the relevant content on the first two meanings, at least, can be fit neatly into one article, it seems most appropriate to do just that.

While you appear to be correct in your reading of the applicable policy and guideline, I tend to think it would serve readers better in this case to immediately find an article with useful content (including lots of links to more specific, in-depth articles) instead of a mere list of links (i.e., a dab page) when they enter "gay". However, I wouldn't object vehemently if Gay redirected to Gay (disambiguation) so long as this article continued to deal substantively with meanings 1 and 2. An unnecessary extra click for most readers, but defensible as part attempting to maintain rhyme and reason in the structure of the encyclopedia, I suppose. Rivertorch (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Content fork - Gay (word) - deletion pending

I'm not sure what happened to the above-discussed article split, but the content seems to be duplicated between here and Gay (word).

Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay (word), and/or fix the duplication. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Structural problem with article

The article scope is the term 'gay'; it covers homosexuality (fair enough), but also covers the derogatory meaning and happiness, and the history of the term.

The problem is that in an encyclopedia you're only allowed to scope the article to be one meaning of the article name (term), and anything else can be removed for being off-topic.

It seems to have been broken off from terminology of homosexuality, but the wikipolicies forbid this article as it stands from covering the multiple meanings.

The policy at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is pretty clear; you're supposed to collect information into articles based on what they are, not how they are referred to. Here you've collected all the things that are called 'gay' and pushed them into one article. But that's what dictionaries do.

So it needs to be restructured. You could merge it back to terminology of homosexuality or do many other things, but as it stands it's a dictionary article.- Wolfkeeper 16:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, there should be one topic to an article - in this case, it is the history and meanings of the word gay. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem is you could do that for any word or term in the dictionary. Then the Wikipedia becomes a dictionary. So that's not allowed by the policy. The policy is the scope of the article has to be a topic that is not a term; and anything not on topic, can be removed.- Wolfkeeper 17:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The article covers material beyond a mere dictionary definition. I disagree that this is a candidate for moving to Wiktionary, and I am removing the tag. If consensus on this page should reveal otherwise, then I'll help condense (and it will take a lot of condensing) and move the term, but not until then. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

…Though after a closer reading of the article, the Descriptor and Use as a noun sections likely should be removed, as they are usage guides, and that's the key issue to be avoided when a term is the subject of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wolfkeper harps on this argument across a range of articles all the time, and it is pretty much unique to him/her. Paul B (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, there's a lot of people that think like this.- Wolfkeeper 21:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. It's tiresome and destructive. Paul B (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It is is it? You've basically twice claimed now to speak for essentially all the editors of the Wikipedia; IMO this could indicate arrogance on your part; there's no way you could know that. But of course in reality it's just a trivial debating tactic; it shows you have nothing.- Wolfkeeper 02:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Gay is an unusual word in that it hasn't just evolved naturally, the sort of thing a dictionary would cover, it was chosen by a distinct group within society to represent themselves, and heavily promoted in that form. That choice of the word is part of the history of the modern place of homosexual people in society. We're not just talking dictionary stuff here. The derogatory meaning has evolved naturally from that earlier choice by the gay community. It could be argued that last sentence could be just dictionary material, but we clearly do have a special case with gay HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that there's another problem with the article. Encyclopedia article titles are supposed to be noun or verb, so the article is really about A gay, or gays, not the adjective, which is what the derogatory use is, and what the current article only covers.- Wolfkeeper 21:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to some of Wolfkeeper's points above: there is absolutely nothing wrong with an article about a word. Look at Nigger, Cunt, Gook, not to mention much of Category:Slang. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Those articles are just ones that people vote to keep because they're 'naughty' words (tee hee). That doesn't mean that 'there's nothing wrong', they all violate the policy. On that basis we should be adding articles like 'rocket (word)' that covers the salad, racing up stairs, spacecraft and sending messages indicating that you are displeased; all in one article as well. It doesn't work here. We don't do that in WP, we add a disamb page and link in the different articles.- Wolfkeeper 00:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they're not kept because they're naughty (if they're even 'kept' at all...many have never been put up for deletion, though). It's because they're notable words. "Nigger" even a book written about it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability is only a guideline, but, by policy, we don't cover individual words in their own article.- Wolfkeeper 02:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please show me that policy. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You know what I'm talking about. It's not a valid argument that WP:OTHERSTUFF exists in the Wikipedia; otherwise no policy would ever be followed, there's always something somewhere that violates a policy.- Wolfkeeper 02:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You are continuing to ignore the arguments of multiple users and respond to straw men. No one is saying that this article is fine because other articles violate the same policies. As people have explained to you repeatedly, articles about notable words do not violate any policy. You don't understand WP:NAD and you apparently don't understand what a dictionary is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the article is about the English word 'gay'. That means that the article cannot be translated, because 'gay' doesn't necessarily translate into Russian, Chinese or whatever. The use of 'gay' to mean happy; it's a different word in those languages than the word that means homosexual. So the article is not correctly formed; it is about several different topics.- Wolfkeeper 02:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The policy says:

One test is that an encyclopedia article's name can usually easily take many different equivalent forms, whereas a dictionary as a linguistic work is about the words in the title, and cannot usually be easily translated..- Wolfkeeper 02:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It also says:

Articles are about

Wikipedia: a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth.

Wiktionary: the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.

Which of these two is this article?- Wolfkeeper 02:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again. An article about a significant English word can be translated into other languages, and they have been many times. Just looking at the few languages I can understand, this article's French, Spanish, and Turkish versions are all about the word. Likewise, we have articles on en-wiki about words in other languages; I pointed out several at the Village Pump thread. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In its homosexual meaning, gay is much more than a word. It is clearly a concept. It was a simple, unifying tool for the bringing together of homosexual activities and activism in the period from the 1960s onwards. It would be very difficult to describe that aspect of its usage in a dictionary. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs to cover the concept, the problem with this article is that it has too much information on the other meanings. If you restrict the article to gay as a homosexual concept/term, with only brief mentions of the other uses then that's probably fine. Right now, the scope of the article is just the word' gay, not the concept 'gay (homosexual)', so it's too broad. Encyclopedia articles are really only allowed one topic; that's the main difference from a dictionary. The concepts 'gay (happy)' and 'gay (bad)' shouldn't be here; they're too different.- Wolfkeeper 17:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the concept of 'gay (bad)' only exists because of the choice of the word gay by the homosexual community. And the impact of that choice on the earlier use, 'gay (happy)', plus the ongoing controversy that has caused, is also of note. It is all connected, and worth documenting, in more depth than a dictionary really ever can. HiLo48 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's connected and worth documenting, but the wikipedia is a web of connections; everything is connected, rice pudding is connected to Chancellor of the Exchequer. That's a different question as to where the boundaries of the articles have to go; that's controlled by the policy; the articles are supposed to be scoped one article per concept, not per word. Obviously you're allowed to mention relationships between concepts/articles, but you're not supposed to fully cover more than once concept per article. At the moment the article is covering several concepts completely in one place, this is unencyclopedic.- Wolfkeeper 18:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As an enthusiastic reverter of Wikipedia vandalism, I really have to note that by far the most frequent occurrence of gay that I see or hear in my everyday life is in some of the less witty vandalism in Wikipedia itself. This is typically in the form of "This school is gay", "Fred Bloggs is gay" (and almost certainly NOT homosexual), and "This article is gay". I give three examples today because I have already seen and reverted three incidents of just such vandalism today. While we don't admire this vandalism, it highlights just how important the "gay (bad)" version of the word has become to at least one sector of society. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)