Talk:гей
Add topicLatest comment: 3 years ago by Gnosandes
@Metaknowledge, What is the reason for canceling an edit? -- Gnosandes (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- You're removing content (images that illustrate the word). You could replace it with an image from gay if you prefer, but it should be obvious why I would revert removal of content. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge, There was no answer to my question, or it is indirect, which is impossible to recognize. I will ask you to answer my question clearly, please. -- Gnosandes (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- I revert all removal of content that is correct and belongs in a dictionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge, Thus, you think it is correct that the article has an image of “kissing men”? Although the article has a different meaning. This is mostly unique to Wikipedia, but not to Wiktionary. The same principle applies to the article “gay club”. Again, an unconvincing answer. -- Gnosandes (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. The definition "gay man" is illustrated by an image of gay men. Any gay man would do, of course, but a photograph of a random gay man could just as easily illustrate man, so the fact that they are kissing is somewhat helpful. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge, Right. We can illustrate the definition of “gay” with the image of “gay men”. But it is not true that we illustrate this by the act of touching the lips (with a kiss). At the same time, these people may be bisexual, even if we depict a person with an LGBT(Q) flag. This fact is not useful and is an ordinary mistake. I'm in favor of removing this image. -- Gnosandes (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- True, they could be bisexual, and there's not much that we can do to disambiguate that. (Not that I think most speakers of Russian would hesitate in applying the word гей to this image.) If you have a better image to suggest, go ahead, but don't remove it and replace it with nothing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge, Native Russian speakers have nothing to do with this. I tell you one thing, and you tell me another. You describe the act of touching the lips, but the article is completely different. I'm in favor of removing this image. -- Gnosandes (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Do not remove the image unilaterally. If you want to continue this with the community's input, I recommend you create a new discussion at WT:TR, and link to this talk page so that people can follow up from what we discussed here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge, You never answered my counterargument, but you started discussing something else. I decline your offer. I'm canceling your edit. -- Gnosandes (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Do not remove the image unilaterally. If you want to continue this with the community's input, I recommend you create a new discussion at WT:TR, and link to this talk page so that people can follow up from what we discussed here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge, Native Russian speakers have nothing to do with this. I tell you one thing, and you tell me another. You describe the act of touching the lips, but the article is completely different. I'm in favor of removing this image. -- Gnosandes (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- True, they could be bisexual, and there's not much that we can do to disambiguate that. (Not that I think most speakers of Russian would hesitate in applying the word гей to this image.) If you have a better image to suggest, go ahead, but don't remove it and replace it with nothing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge, Right. We can illustrate the definition of “gay” with the image of “gay men”. But it is not true that we illustrate this by the act of touching the lips (with a kiss). At the same time, these people may be bisexual, even if we depict a person with an LGBT(Q) flag. This fact is not useful and is an ordinary mistake. I'm in favor of removing this image. -- Gnosandes (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. The definition "gay man" is illustrated by an image of gay men. Any gay man would do, of course, but a photograph of a random gay man could just as easily illustrate man, so the fact that they are kissing is somewhat helpful. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge, Thus, you think it is correct that the article has an image of “kissing men”? Although the article has a different meaning. This is mostly unique to Wikipedia, but not to Wiktionary. The same principle applies to the article “gay club”. Again, an unconvincing answer. -- Gnosandes (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- I revert all removal of content that is correct and belongs in a dictionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge, There was no answer to my question, or it is indirect, which is impossible to recognize. I will ask you to answer my question clearly, please. -- Gnosandes (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have reinstated the previous image. Gnosandes, if you propose replacing it by something better, at least offer a better option. The one you put on the entry was, well, garbage. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Mnemosientje, Unconvincing, this illustration does not relate to the subject of the article. The best option for such an abstract and stretched concept as " gay " is not found, which means that the illustration should be removed. -- Gnosandes (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Why does this entry merit an image at all? Homosexuality is not something which can be visually identified so a visual representation won't help a reader recognize it if they see it. - TheDaveRoss 20:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- The same could be said for American. If you have a proposal for widespread removal of images, you should make that proposal at the BP, rather than on the talk page of a single Russian entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Of course it can be visually identified. If someone commits homosexual acts it is homosexuality and he is a homosexual. Conversely, if someone doesn’t he isn’t. There is no such thing as homosexual attraction, it’s propaganda. If you don’t play golf you aren’t a golf player either. And asexuality and celibacy are synonyms. Man is a black box. All these terms asexuality, homosexuality etc. are defined in a slanted fashion. Why define by somebody’s whims instead of by what he does? Fay Freak (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Mnemosientje, @Fay Freak, I wrote why this article doesn't deserve this illustration above. However, I did not meet with a good objection or criticism. The article is about "gay", not "gays kiss". Is it so hard to understand? All your objections are again unconvincing. We are talking about this article, in which the illustration does not correspond to the topic described. -- Gnosandes (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: But if you don’t do gay kisses, you are hardly gay, and if you do gay kisses you are gay, so a gay kiss is the most fitting picture. Fay Freak (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak, This is again a misconception. Why kisses (among the guys) would give a marking to some person that he is gay. For example, I recently read about the differentiation of asexuality, that you can never describe with illustrations. These are already personal fetishes of each person. No, this illustration does not fit, again on the topic of the article. At the same time, I provided a link to the Russian Wikipedia (wikipedia|lang=ru), so everyone who needs to can see the illustrations there and read about this topic more. -- Gnosandes (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: But if you don’t do gay kisses, you are hardly gay, and if you do gay kisses you are gay, so a gay kiss is the most fitting picture. Fay Freak (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Mnemosientje, @Fay Freak, I wrote why this article doesn't deserve this illustration above. However, I did not meet with a good objection or criticism. The article is about "gay", not "gays kiss". Is it so hard to understand? All your objections are again unconvincing. We are talking about this article, in which the illustration does not correspond to the topic described. -- Gnosandes (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge, Mnemosientje, Fay Freak: I returned the illustration and made a few edits. I pondered and came to the conclusion for the Russian entry that in the 21st century it is unlikely that heterosexual men would kiss each other. However, looking at the illustrations of the 20-40/50s of the 20th century, I can conclude that kissing was a common occurrence among the younger generation among heterosexual men. And also from the dialogue, etc. between two young men from the 1954 film Certificate of Maturity. Those movements, dialogues, kisses, facial expressions, etc., which existed in the 20th century, now with a high degree of probability can be perceived as a homosexual action. And if we start from today's realities, then this illustration is suitable. So I was wrong and I apologize to you. Gnosandes (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)