Talk:Same gender loving

message: Hello All:
I just got some really good advice and insight from a source very close (subject wise) to this whole thing.  I gave him every version of the Wikipedia SGL pages, and all the reactionary comments, including about the Cleo Manago page.  He said it’s a waste of time to argue with biased anonymous people on the internet. That their goal was to block or freeze voices that don’t regurgitate their likely white and/or gay identified voice. It was clear by the lack of challenge to the erroneous version of SGL that was up, that honoring Wikipedia’s written policy was not mandatory. He said he faced these contradictions all the time, and that it was to be expected.   
The most poignant thing he said was that these reactions reminded him of when people who did not agree with the war in Iraq were irrationally called unpatriotic.  Everything I wrote about gay was true and never challenged or addressed.  Instead of acknowledging the facts I was called a bigot, prejudiced and accused of being Cleo himself.  He reminded me that oppression and racism is rarely rational, and not to put anymore energy into responding to clear bias and ignorance that even Stevie Wonder could see.
I plan to heed his advice.  (Wikipaeton (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. K bye Cleo.Beatmakerz (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Advice from a reliable source

message: I ask this because someone is perpetually altering my comments, and attempting to revise the real genesis, purpose and meaning of SGL. Who and what is the criteria for a source?  Cleo Manago created the term, purpose and meaning of same gender loving.  He is definitely a source. Even his comments on the issue are being erased!  SGL is not a fluke, but a real word and concept that has a real meaning. What is the point and agenda here, Wikipedia people?   What's going on?  Wouldn't you rant under the circumstances? Why is this being allowed?
:Definitely a source alright, a source of pure B.S. Wikipedia is about forming consensus, not usurping control. Judging by your own little autobiography page Cleo Manago it is clear that consensus is something you are incapable of doing. You are truly a legend in your own mind! Given your racially motivated contempt and unwillingess to deal with other humans you percieve as caucasian, you might want to try learning how to work with other people. If you keep writing this crap however and reverting editors who are trying to help improve this article, you will get the article frozen.Beatmakerz (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is determining truth here, and what's OK?

message: The term seems notable enough to me.  Try googling same gender loving sgl.  Many people even seem to use it exclusively, instead of the somewhat similar LGBT.  If one's looking for more serious validation besides slang usage, GLAAD seems to take the term seriously, or look at the way the term is used in this call for submissions for a conference.
I do see the point that this page is largely a definition.  However, the history behind the term takes it somewhat beyond strictly a definition, and that some people seem to consider SGL a movement as well as a term leads me to believe this page has room for expansion and thus shouldn't be deleted.  --Jackhorkheimer 09:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will take your word for it. Please improve th article to mention this if you can, so others don't make the same mistake.. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion?

message: I've removed the proposed deletion tag.  This is certainly not a hoax, and I'll add some sources shortly.  
I would suggest a merge to Terminology of homosexuality at least until this expands more, though -- it's still pretty close to dictionary definition territory. —Celithemis 08:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be down with that merge.  A google search revealed a lot of blogs and urbandictionary.com entries, which generally doesn't bode well; remember that neologisms (which I think this is) need to be the subject of sources, not simply used in sources, or else the article is inherently original research from primary sources... -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 09:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prodded again... 

message: : Are this article and Same-gender-loving (SGL) essentially the same?  Can they be merged together? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Articles such as Same-gender-loving (SGL) or Same gender loving or SGL are what we call "forks" and are simply not allowed. Wikipaeton, if you have an alternative text, please post it at user:Wikipaeton/sandbox and invite discussion here. But quite honestly, the present text seems OK. Could you manage to stop ranting and explain in one sentence what is wrong withthe article. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: In a 2004 study of African American men, most of whom were recruited from black gay organizations, 12% identified as same gender loving, while 53% identified as gay.[3] Men attending Black Gay Pride Festivals in nine U.S. cities in 2000 responded similarly, with 10% identifying as same gender loving, 66% as gay, and 14% as bisexual.[4]
Am I the only one here to raise eyebrows over the fact that two studies that reported on the proportion of African American men identified themselves as gay drew their research samples from, on the one hand, black gay organisations and on the other, attendees at Black Gay Pride Festivals?  Is it just me, or does that read like a textbook example of selection bias? --7Kim (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A slightly late reply... I would guess that these surveys were obviously not meant to determine the proporition of the black community that identifies as 'same gender loving', but the proportion of the black LGBT community that does so, giving an impression of how widespread this identity is among them. Robofish (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: "SGL is an alternative to Eurocentric homosexual identities e.g. gay and lesbian which do not culturally affirm or engage the rich history and cultures of people of African descent. Specifically, the term SGL affirms Black homosexual and bisexual men and women through its African American conceptual origins, African inspired iconography, philosophy, symbology, principles, and values."
What does this mean? Does it mean that black gays are racists towards non-blacks?  --83.254.33.180 (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what exactly does SGL mean? 

message: Down low is a slang descriptor of a dysfunctional self-concept and cocommittent behaviour which is not concordant with the notion of love as intended with in the SGL concept. It has been deleted.Michaeljfoster (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Down Low Unrelated

message: Why? I need some justification for the this punctuation please.Michaeljfoster (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is White-Dominated in qoutes

message: There is no need for the paragraph about gay identity surveys because the studies illuminate no relevant information. That is to say, a study that goes to a organization with the term gay in its title and asks the men there whether or not they identify as gay is highly likely to find a large proportion of men who say yes they do identify as gay. In much the same way going to Japan and asking a group of people if they identify as Japanese will very large proportions of people who say they do. Selection bias: ample selection bias refers to problems where the dependent variable is observed only for a restricted, nonrandom sample.http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/stat/bias.html. Therefore what is exactly is being contributed to the definition of SGl by their inclusion?
Also to be clear. Regarding the "Multiple Identities: Creating
Community on Campus for LGBT Students" by Kerry John Poynter, Jamie Washington. They say specifically "Language is one of the major challenges in understanding and engaging multiple identities. For African Americans, for example, the terms lesbian,gay, bisexual, and transgender are often associated with white culture(Boykin, 1996). As a result, many people of color distance themselves from these terms and have crafted others, as described by Boykin (2005): Same-gender loving. Often used by people of color who arecomfortable with their same-sex attraction but do not connect with the social and political connotations that come with the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender..." Michaeljfoster (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.– Lionel (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Studies of Gay Identities Irrelevant

message: In the context of sexual behavior, the word "loving" is not used in its broadest sense, let alone Platonic love. Like two heterosexual males or two heterosexual females loving each other like brothers, i.e., with sexual activity or attraction. 
But I wonder if the coiner (or the users) of this term using loving to blur the distinction, or to avoid negative connotations, or what? I've seen attempts to deny that there is (or, more pertinently, should be) any distinction between:
* Those two little boys really love each other, and
* Those two little boys are gay 
So I would be in the position of someone trying to describe a distinction which advocates or partisans are trying to blur. Shall I just give up now? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of loving

message: Hi there, just asking. Should the LGBT box/table and cats (underneath) be in this article? Considering the fact that this term rejects the notion of LGBT I'm surprised they are added here. 2.30.15.202 (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: EDIT: Sorry I forgot to log on. Working on Cleo Manago's article in my sandbox. Anyone is welcome to help or contribute. Thank you. CultureCouture (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the LGBT box and categories be here?