Talk:Bisexual chic/Archive 1

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

text: 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)

text: It's not perfect (I added a few  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)
thread_title: Facts?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article cleaned up 

message: 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)
thread_title: The OC

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: What needs fixing?

message: 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)
thread_title: Need to discuss on Talk page and gender '''[[Double standard]]''' on bisexuality

message: I'm recording the latest version in case it too is deleted. Benjiboi 03:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I am not going to delete willy-nilly.  I considered this more of a WP:BOLD maneuver, considering that I alerted everyone in the community of what I had done and asked for help and feedback.  I like that your version of the article focuses on the phrase and its usage, rather than a history lesson through the lens of "bisexual chic".  I am thinking that the redlinked article I suggested above might be a good way to incorporate the material from the old version.  What do you think?  Joie de Vivre 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what is the redlinked article is? Benjiboi 18:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cultural acceptability of bisexuality in Western culture, at the bottom of the section above this one.  Joie de Vivre 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the title but it would seem to go better in the Bisexual article under Popular Culture or mainstream acceptance or visibility.Benjiboi 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not particularly attached to the title, I was curious if you thought that in the void of not describing it as "bisexual chic" that it should be described elsewhere.  I will check out the places you mentioned.  Joie de Vivre 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I made some changes to the version you wrote.  What do you think of the changes?  Joie de Vivre 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most seem fine, I've made a few more and removed "more recognizable" as I'm not sure that true and it may be impossible to prove. it's also not needed. Benjiboi 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't agree that the usage of the phrase is definitely negative or positive or that when someone means it in one sense is automatically negative. That's why I put the "can be" there. At this point i need to get back to my other work but good luck! Benjiboi 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just popping in to say I think this is a much better article now, even if I think the (unreferenced) content regarding "waves" of bisexuality was accurate. Congrats all those who worked on it. DevAlt 19:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some resources 

message: What was the reason for simply gutting this article, rather than trying to make it better? 69.247.134.2 17:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of sources, POV material.  See version linked at top of section titled NPOV on this page . Joie de Vivre T 06:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gutted