Jump to content

Talk:Queer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And/or in short description

[edit]

While MOS:ANDOR is a good general rule, there are times when or is not entirely clear (and the MOS article notes such exceptions exist). The existing wording seems like it could be misread as People who are neither heterosexual nor cisgender rather than People who are either not heterosexual or are not cisgender (or are neither). It could also be misread as People who are not heterosexual, or people who are cisgender, since it lacks parallelism on the other side of the or. The simplest and least confusing version to me would be People who are not heterosexual or not cisgender. Would this be too fussy? Lewisguile (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People who are not heterosexual or not cisgender makes sense to me, and is similar to the wording the lead sentence has settled on after considerable discussion over the years.--Trystan (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change it for now, then. As you say, it also reflects the first sentence of the lede. Lewisguile (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" renamed to "Reactions"; why?

[edit]

@Lewisguile Why did you rename this headline? "Reactions" is too vague and less representative of what is acutally written in this paragraph in my opinion. Maybe "Backlash" would be more descriptive than "Criticism", but "Reactions" is much too tame of a word for this section. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer&diff=1256528656&oldid=1256474841 JapanYoshi [Talk] 05:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the renaming, for reasons set out in WP:Criticism. "Reactions" is more neutral, and allows for inclusion of more sources like Gamson that examine and analyze implications, rather than pre-limiting the discussion to the type of reaction that fits into the bucket of "Criticism".--Trystan (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Trystan said. It's generally a bad idea to have a "Criticisms" section. We shouldn't silo all negative response to one area and all the positive stuff elsewhere; it's better to have a more nuanced representation of how people have responded to a topic. Lewisguile (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queer as a derogatory term

[edit]

I see that it’s called “reclaimed” but I don’t thing that’s 100% accurate. And the page downplays the fact that as late as 2015 the term is widely used in more conservative portions of the US in particular it’s used a a slur/and need to include that kind of information. It’s used to identify folks for less than ideal issues and targets them.

it can be said it’s trying to be reclaimed, but it isn’t wholly so and this article makes it seem as tho there are no lingering issues when clearly here are - there needs to be a section on its darker uses to help clarify that not everyone uses it as endearment or reclamation 198.210.85.56 (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you search the archives (check the search bar in the yellow box at the top), you'll see we've discussed this several times already (here, here, and [1], etc.). If you re-read the lede, however, you'll see that we already say "queer activists began to reclaim the word". I.e., it already says what you're suggesting. This same language ("began to be reclaimed"/"began to reclaim") is used throughout.
The third paragraph of the lede also mentions objections to the term, including for its derogatory usage. The "Reaction" subsection details this in greater depth. The history section also details its pejorative usage.
What else, specifically, are you suggesting that isn't already covered? Lewisguile (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queer&oldid=1269779153"