Talk:Same gender loving

Who is determining truth here, and what's OK?

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)

Again, irrational assumptions that are based on your issues are running your show. Cleo Manago did not write the little page you are referencing. I did. I have no doubt that you do have racist goals to freeze the page. Because you are being personal. I personally have no problem with concensus or dialogue. But that's not what's happenning here. What's happenning here is pure reactionary and irrational tantrums based on people's issues. Not on what's right. If wikipedia really is whitipedia, than I will just inform people of what this is and move on. I thought it was an open space to share enclopedic information. Clearly it's not (Wikipaeton (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Deletion?

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)

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)

Prodded again...

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)

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)

Merge

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)

I agree completely that it could be merged. Initially I tried to do that. But (check the history), for some reason(duh!), Voyagerfan5761 keeps obsessively changing it back to the wrong and gay/racist/incorrect version. As someone who identifies as SGL and has followed the term for two decades, I know its significance and what it really means. Sure. let's merge it, so a broader (less reactionary, more accurate) version can be on Wikipedia. Wikipaeton (talk / contribs) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

Sure, I can stop ranting. and do just what you requested. I'm new here and just learning the ropes. The present text is full of hearsay and opinion that can't be referenced. So it's not OK. I figured and assumed that the facts were OK. But now, I'll try the sandbox. Thanks. (Wikipaeton (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The more accurate version of SGL is at [same gender loving] Like I said before, I have no problem with a merge instead of a "fork," because the text I have submitted contexualizes the erroneous, opinion with no references stuff on wikipedia there now. I hope there is a discussion, instead of the continued privileging of what's on at the same gender loving wiki now. Also SGL would be relevant to African American issues as well. It is not of the "LGBT" culture. (Wikipaeton (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Blaggot

There is a fundamental fault with the phrase "same gender loving" - you are trying to make it refer to African-Anericans when of course it is applicable to homosexuals of any race. May I suggest the word "blaggot", being a combination of black and faggot. I thought this up all by myself, but found that others had done it before me - see Urban Dictionary. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I dont know about "Blaggot", I wont be using that anytime soon. I do think your right that SGL can apply to any race who wants to say it, there is nothing particularly "Black" about it. It can have meaning for all peoples who may wish an alternative to "Gay". Though I do believe that people's uncomfortablity with the word "gay" is USUALLY rooted in plain old homophobia, and the move is a divisive one to separate from "whites", as if they invented homosexuality. It is a good point that outside of the cultural differences, there is nothing uniquely different about homosexuality between different races. Though it seems someone wants us all to think so, and exploits that to no end. Though he did not invent it, Cleo Manago's co-opting of the term for Blacks doesnt mean that others seeking to distance themselves from "Gay" cant also use it.

LOL, that's all besides the point, and is your perception. All words including gay and SGL are used and made relevant by human beings. "Gay" was not always used as it is now. White Human beings agreed or were encouraged to make gay mean homosexual community. Now many human beings do so. Life is a process, it does not stop because some White homosexuals decided to make gay mean homosexual. That I don't have resonance with and am not comfortable with gay has no connection at all with homophobia. I have no qualms with being a homosexualand have never been in a closet. I can't speak for what you USUALLY see or believe. When it comes to SGL and its wide and growing usage, it has more to do with self-determination an cultural affirmation than what you are talking about. SGL is clearly new to you. But it is not to me. There are conferences, groups, organizations, essays, journals, etc. all written about and around SGL. Do some research, and learn more. The resistance to SGL is USUALLY plain old racism and White gay chauvinism. (75.212.8.135 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

My apologies. You're right it's not just homophobia. I guess it can also be motivated by bigotry and prejudice, if one associates the word gay with the race we hold such contempt for. I have seen no evidence of anyone "resisting" the term as you claim, and certainly no "gay white chauvinism" excercised on these pages. Our concern here is for the integrity of this article, that it be presented as an honest, sourcable description. If there are known controversies then perhaps they should be part of the article as well. This is not an advert for Cleo Manago and this Wikipedia is not a playground for his ego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.43.170 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, now, we finally get to the root of all of the resistance and reaction, which, as is typical is based on projection and assumption, and therefore won't be rationally explained. You think that Cleo is trying to use Wikipedia for advert and his ego. This is based on what? Here is where the opportunity to be responsible for your impression comes in. I'll await the response to that question. Your "advert and Cleo ego" concerns are based on what? Please be able to reference your response.

Secondly, I know that Cleo would invite any and all rational perspective on a so-called controversy about SGL. Where is it? An as the one who put together the correct SGL wikipedia, I know I have no problem with any controversy being part of the article. Remember, I never erased any of the biased non encyclopedia, incorrect opinions that were there. I just added what I knew to be true. But you kept erasing that! Your words like "bigotry and prejudice" need to be explained as well. What do you mean? What "bigotry and prejudice" have I displayed. A central theme was and is that gay is a white male creation and is symbolically adorned in 100% European ethos and history i.e. pink triangles and lambdas's etc. That's an absolute fact. Go too Wiki's LGBT pages and look.

Now tell me, what "bigotry and prejudice"? Finally, the evidence of resistance is everywhere within all the ruckus you have started about my corrections to the reactionary, hearsay based, gay chauvanistic version of SGL you prefer. Erasing what I wrote, and not doing a fair merge are blatant examples of you resistance and lack of integrity.

Be responsible: Tell me, what "bigotry and prejudice"? You think that Cleo is trying to use Wikipedia for advert and his ego. This is based on what? Your "advert and Cleo ego" concerns are based on what? Please be able to reference your response, as if you request it, I will do the same. (Wikipaeton (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC))