Talk:Bugchasing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is covered by WikiProject LGBT studies, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to LGBT issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class. |
Contents |
[edit] current version looks good
Good job to the editors who seem to have resolved the problems with weasel words and lack of sources.
The current version is very factual and well-sourced.
Aroundthewayboy 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] weasel words?
This article is full of weasel words, which is to say that it always says "some people say, some people do". If we got the info from an article, we could name these people, "A man interviewed in a blah blah article notably said" for example. The way this is isn't written up to code. Lotusduck 03:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Nevertheless, that's not an acceptable reason to remove half the article, which is why I've reverted your changes. Exploding Boy 07:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It isn't? If the author of the uncited material wanted to put it back, they certainly could whether I deleted the material or put cite tags on it. Likely neither will happen. Do we constantly have to leave unencyclopedic stuff in just because it isn't reverted the first time it's added? The portions I took out will never be encyclopedic- they are all "Some people believe x, while others believe y". This has not been an indescriminate cut, and so I'm going to do it again. Lotusduck 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Reverted again. Please stop removing information wholesale. If you have an issue with the article then improve it by rewriting it, or place a tag on it requesting someone else do it instead. Please don't remove this information again. Exploding Boy 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-
It isn't information, it's opinon. I can't re-write opinion that I can't source, and neither can anyone else. You want me to cover this article with fact tags, I guess I'm going to have to deal with that. But it'll only make everyone think the whole thing is made up. Shouldn't the burden of proof by put on the person that added all of these dubious and opinion based claims? Why not let that person be the one to try to find support for the claims instead of the rest of us having to deal with it? How can I re-write something that I obviously can't find evidence for- I can't. By this example, you would support keeping all unverifiable claims unless someone re-wrote them into different unverifiable claims. If you have an issue with this information then you can improve it by citing it, or removing it and letting someone else re-add it with citations instead- I don't want to get into an edit war, but I don't want to have to google phrases to try and find sources for some odd editors opinon. There is no way to improve upon these spurious claims besides removal- convince me otherwise.Lotusduck 19:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Some people edit things out of controvertial topics, to be sure, but it's just as bad to over-protect an article from being edited. I charge that I would have no problem removing speculative viewpoints written on the Carebears article, but on this page removing a sentance that starts with "It is thought that some men might" is removing information? If someone got this from a source, they could have stated the study that put forth this idea. Most likely, someone who didn't like what they thought the article said shoved a bunch of caveats and ideas on it from out of their head. So as I see it, leaving these comments in is unbased censorship, and taking them out is just editing, and not even neccessarily bad faith, as it doesn't stop the author to try to insert the sentances again. Lotusduck 21:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
Here is some generally discussive and non-factual stuff from the article. I think this collection of thoughts is basically a discussion of some possible aspects of the idea. So as discussion, it goes in discussion.
It is thought that some men wish to become infected with HIV because they feel guilty (or even left out) because many of their friends are HIV-positive or because they feel fatalistic about becoming HIV-positive and want to stop worrying about when they might become infected ordinarily. [citation needed]
[edit] Clarification
Was concerned with the vague "many" which did not clarify the small extent "bugchasing" is in the gay community.
[edit] Unneeded citation
Someone has requested a citation for the statement that some gay people feel that the "bugchasing" phenomenon might give gay people a bad reputation. I am removing this request for a citation for several reasons. Firstly, a citation isn't really needed in incidents of common-sense rules. There is nothing controversial or potentially libelous about the statement; it is simply common sense. It is general knowledge that gay and lesbian people face an overwhelming amount of stigma and hatred from the global community. It is simply common sense that they would fear that a subculture within their culture wherein people are actively seeking to contract a life-threatening disease (that they then might spread to others) might make them, as a community, look bad. To insinuate otherwise would be to intimate that gay people are just plain stupid. Obviously I'm expressing some serious POV here, but I think that those you could find who DONT think voluntarily, intentionally contracting HIV is absolutely insane are in the extreme minority. Further, it is hugely documented that there are many people within the gay community at large who frown upon ANYTHING that might make them look less than "normal" to the general public, because they are afraid of discrimination and judgement; things like the leather men or drag queens. There is even a speech about it in the play/movie Jeffrey where the character Sterling says (I'm paraphrasing): "I turned on the television and there were these two men and they said 'Hi, I'm Bob, and this is my husband, Mark. And he's a construction worker and I'm a doctor. And I just want everyone watching to see us and to know that gay people are just like everyone else.' And I thought, 'Ooooh. Get HER! '" In short, the statement is based in general knowledge and echoes common sene, and requesting a citation is overzealous wiki-watching: your diligence is appreciated, but in this case, not prudent. Pacian 07:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Further, for clarification, I have edited the text to read as follows:
- Further, similar to the existance of NAMBLA, it is feared by the gay community at large that the behaviours of bugchasers may contribute to a public perception that the practice is common or encouraged by all gay people, and would thus cause further ill-will towards them. Pacian 07:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
