Talk:Bugchasing

message: Retrieving this from article history. I don't think that it is particularly helpful but it is here for future reference as it may be relevant. Details giftgiving/bugchasing.
If it is placed in the article, my thought is that it should replace the Bobby Box quotebox. Or be placed in group dynamics. Urve (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old graph of the Grov and Parsons typology for bugchasing and giftgiving 

message: The following passage:
"Owing to LGBT activism since the AIDS epidemic began—largely focusing on gay identity not as an innately sexual one, but "de-sexed" (removed from sexuality) for the purposes of a more mainstream political agenda—bugchasing remains controversial, with some gay academics and activists minimizing its prevalance or denying it exists altogether.[32] For example, in response to Freeman's 2003 Rolling Stone article which brought attention to bugchasing, the Human Rights Campaign (an LGBT advocacy group centered in liberal politics[33]) was described by sexuality studies scholar Adam J. Greteman as upset, arguably because the practice did not align with its homonormative political ambitions.[34]"
Is unacceptably biased, and reports academic opinion as fact, unattributed. You can't just claim that LGBT activism is focused on de-sexing gay people, and THAT is why bugchasing is controversial. That's not a fact. It is very much a statement of opinion. In fact, two statements of opinion. I don't think it should be in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthistwisted (talk • contribs) 17:48, March 10, 2022 (UTC)
:This is what reliable sources report in connection to bugchasing.  Urve (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an OPINION, not a report. The clause "Owing to LGBT activism since the AIDS epidemic began—largely focusing on gay identity not as an innately sexual one, but "de-sexed" (removed from sexuality) for the purposes of a more mainstream political agenda—bugchasing remains controversial" is a statement of opinion, not a report of fact. It cannot be regurgitated as objective fact, when it is in fact a subjective claim by one academic, Chris Ashford. Isthistwisted (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. But you're free to make an edit that doesn't unduly remove information about bugchasing. First you say the entire paragraph is bad, now it's that source. So if it's that source, you can do something about it.  Urve (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the source that's bad. It's that an opinion from that source is stated as a fact. It is not a fact that mainstream gay activism is de-sexed or homonormative, and it's not a fact that that is why bugchasing is controversial. Those are just opinions. The ACLU/Greteman claim is at least framed as the presentation of the opinion of one academic, but the same can't be said for the Ashford opinion. Isthistwisted (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree. I think the premise (that gay activism has historically diminished in its anti-liberalism) and reasoning are well-accepted in sexuality studies. Like I said, you're free to start attributing the claim to the author; I don't care (though I think it's incorrect and a false sense of protecting wikivoice) as long as a meaningful part of bugchasing literature isn't erased.  Urve (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "gay activism has historically diminished in its anti-liberalism" is not the premise. The premises are 1) that LGBT activism de-sexes homosexuals, and 2) that controversy among gay activists about bugchasing is due to said de-sexed ambitions. These are opinions, and controversial ones at that, which cannot be reported responsibly without being framed as singular viewpoints. I fixed it. Isthistwisted (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issues are the same, and are both mainstream thought in sexuality studies. The edit isn't inaccurate (I was worried that the word "claimed" would be brought in here, which is a poor way to attribute, but that didn't happen!), so I won't object. Thanks for editing and your thoughts. I appreciate them.  Urve (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They’re not the same issue. I believe that mainstream gay activism has been de-sexed for a long time, but I don’t believe that that’s the root of the controversy about bugchasing. Bugchasing is controversial because it’s a very dangerous paraphilia that is disturbing in its eroticization of death and disease. Not because it’s a sexual phenomenon. The view that the ACLU is homonormative does not naturally precipitate the view that controversy around bugchasing is about de-sexing homosexuals. Isthistwisted (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You can believe or not believe whatever you want. But Wikipedia is guided by reliable sources, not editorial judgments. This is the same issue above as people saying the idea of bugchasing is outdated because they personally think PrEP would have eliminated it. There's nothing wrong with what personal belief (I disagree but that's immaterial) - it's just that this website isn't a blog to make your case on why a certain thing is true or untrue, but instead about recording what others have already said of it.  Urve (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you feel like my edits are me using Wikipedia as a “blog to make [my] case”? Isthistwisted (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

text:  No, they were not correct in their wholesale removal of the paragraph. You know, the edit that led to this discussion. But thanks for the lecture. Four tildes to sign your comments. Urve (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

text:  Removal was justified. It more or less claimed that the Human Rights Campaign was hiding the truth due to their quote "liberal politics". They were justified in criticising an article which attributed 25% of HIV infections to bugchasing without any evidence, a claim which subsequent scholars have refuted. It isn't a lecture, only trying to be helpful. Highlighting the guidelines for interested editors is useful. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the removal of a prominent viewpoint in reliable sources is not "justified" just because you disagree with their criticism of the HRC. I'm not really interested in rehashing year-old edits with you. Urve (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Lolllllllllllll Isthistwisted (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: *Bug Chasers: The men who long to be HIV+
Where the Rolling Stone article is mentioned I put a link to a wiki article about it. Thoughts in general?  Bluerasberry (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean thoughts on inclusion, then good. If you mean thoughts on the article itself, it's total bunk.  Urve (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki article on ''Rolling Stone'' article 

message: *
*announcement - https://twitter.com/JGarciaIglesias/status/1569590807891525634
 Bluerasberry (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I skimmed and cited it. Nothing seems particularly new.  Urve (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: New book on Bugchasing