Talk:Down-low (slang)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.

Linguistics Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Linguistics. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Archives
2004 - present

Contents 1 possible source 2 But what is the actual *meaning*? 3 Remove this article? 4 Some unclear passages 5 Mislead 6 Context section 7 Flawed article

[edit] possible source

Here. Benjiboi 15:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] But what is the actual *meaning*?

The article talks at length about "use of the term in a homosexual context" and who wrote about that and who criticizes it, but it never says what it actually means in that context. Sex between African-American males? Or what? -- 00:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a slang term for closeted homosexuality.EyePhoenix (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove this article?

Since 'Down-low' is a slang term I think it would be better if this page just linked to the page that describes men who engage in homosexual activity but don't identify as gay (assuming there is one). Ashmoo (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Down-low means different things to different people so this article is certainly needed to illustrate the various meanings. Benjiboi 15:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that wikipedia is not a dictionary. Different meanings of a term should be split off using a disambiguation page. Ashmoo (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is to list different articles likely to be searched under the same name; for instance Cooper disambiguation page might include various people with articles who have the name as well as places called Cooper. We don't simply use those pages to list all the definitions as that's what the wiktionary does. This article goes beyond dictionary definitions eve n if it still needs improving. Benjiboi 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But the article only seems to be about 1. Closeted homosexuality 2. Closeted homosexuality amongst African-Americans and 3. The etyomology of the phrase 'Down-Low'. I think the article needs to be cleared about which topic it is talked about. Ashmoo (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, clarity would be a good thing. In short the lede should summarize that it's a term with various meanings and provide a brief summary and earliest known use. And in the 2000s came to be used widely in the mainstream media as synonymous with black men who did not identify as gay or bisexual but did have sex with other men. The article should probably be then organized around the overall etymology followed chronologically by usages with the various meanings. I think that would be most helpful. Benjiboi 01:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My problem with this is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary and detailed etymologies belong a dictionary. Encyclopedias generally don't provide histories of words or phrases, but focus on topics. Ashmoo (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hear you and would agree in many cases, however this, to me, is an example of a word that can be treated encyclopedicly and is on that path. Google scholar has over 5000 hits so material seems readily available and the subject meritig much more more than just a dictionary treatment. Benjiboi 21:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound flippant, but I typed 'metal hamster' into Google scholar and got 29,000 hits, so I'm not sure that really indicates anything significant. If you look at Google Scholar for 'down low', pretty much every entry that isn't just 'down' and 'low' in the same sentence is referring to 'closeted gay Afro-Americans'. Ashmoo (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Actually if you use quotes on those search terms of metal hamster you get 2 hits. And it may be true that many or even most of those google scholar refs refer to the down-low of black men who have sex with men but it still isn't the lone meaning through history of the term nor is it now. What I was illustrating is that there is arguably plenty of scholarly material to go well beyond a dictionary definition and although there are multiple ways to approach it we have to be more universal in our articles to include not just the gay sex definition but also the other ones that preceeded it and continue to hold currency. Benjiboi 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we may be misunderstanding each other. I accept that their are multiple definitions of the phrase 'Down-low' and I accept that each definition deserves an entry. I just think that

1. Each definition should have it's own article
2. The phrase 'down-low' should not have an article, because wikipedia doesn't have articles on the history of phrases.

Maybe the example of Neptune may help. Neptune can mean the Greek god or the planet, but each still gets a seperate article, even though they are etymologically related (the planet is named after the god).

Ashmoo (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that you think this article shouldn't exist and I disagree. Wikipedia definitely has articles on the history of words/phrases generally because they merit an article, see love for example, when a word/phrase moves beyond a simple dictionary definition. Frankly if this article wasn't supportable by sources I likely would agree with you. I also think that multiple definitions can be contained within the same article as long as they are clearly explained. They may all merit the same coverage or one may weight a larger portion. Benjiboi 16:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the article should not exist. I'm just saying that their shouldn't be an article on a word (because descriptions of words is the role of a dictionary).

When you look at the Google scholar search that you did, none of the articles are about the history of the phrase. Almost all the articles that aren't about electronics/physics are about closeted Afro-Americans homosexuals.

The article on love briefly mentions that it has multiple meanings, but spends 95% of the article on the topic of love, detailing ideas about the difference between familial/sexual love etc. The love article is not an etymology on the English word 'love'.

So to make this clear this is the format of article I would prefer. 1. A brief introduction saying that this article is about Afro-American homosexuality. 2. A quick mention that 'down-low' has other meanings with links to the other meanings. 3. A section on the etymology of the phrase itself. 4. The main part of the article talking about AA homosexuality.

Please note that I'm not trying to favour one definition over another. If you think other definitions are equally important I think they should also get articles (but seperate articles). Ashmoo (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak to what percentage of those nearly 6000 sources talked about the down-low homosex phenomena compared to others as I haven't researched all of them. My hunch is that we actually should emphasize the original meanings and that in America, in the 2000s it became synonymous with MsM. As this is still not a universal definition the lede should be clear on that. There were other definitions prior and other definitions continue to exist even in popular culture. I would support after the lede sections on etymology, history and usages (in chronological order). I've also found it helpful to let the sources guide the process. There seems to be plenty. Benjiboi 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the WP:NOT#DICT and WP is not a dictionary official WP policies.

Ok, I'm willing to accept an article on the history of the phrase 'Down-low', but each seperate meaning of the word should have its own article, so as to not confuse the phrase with the thing it represents (which is the main problem with this article). The only problem is, that every source in this article (except for the Boykin one) is about men who have sex with men, not the history of the phrase itself.

I think 'men who have sex with men' is a well enough studied subject that it deserves an article, whether the article is called 'down-low', 'Msm' or 'XYZ'.

PS. Thanks for providing those sources.

Ashmoo (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of those policies. I simply disagree "each separate meaning of the word should have its own article" as I feel we should strive to make the subject clear and i feel we can do so in one article, If it becomes too large then potentially a split may make sense. See Fruit (slang) for an example of how the subject could be approached. Benjiboi 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can accept that. But I'm a little confused with some of your reversions of some of my edits. For instance, I added a 2nd definition to the opening sentence (the MsM one) and you reverted it saying is subjective, we can't say that all uses mean this. How is adding a 2nd def implying that all uses mean this? I would think the opposite would be true. Ashmoo (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. "as well as the state of secretly having homosexual encounters" implied that all meanings also had this connotation and/or anything that wasn't a "secretly hidden type meaning" was a "homosexual encounter". There are better ways to state this including "In the 2000s "down-low" has been positioned in the US media as synonymous with men who have sex with men; the phrase is generally applied to men who do not identify as gay or bisexual." Benjiboi 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. But I think it would have been better to modify the article so it said that rather than just do reverts, otherwise this article is never going to get anywhere. Ashmoo (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Plus I re-inserted the 'fact' tags. The section in question makes a lot of absolute statements that would actually be very difficult to verify, especially lots of absolute negative assertions such as 'no study has ever...', so we need to have specific cites so people can see how reliable this info is. For instance, is each individual claim generally accepted by health workers, the result of a single study, or the opinion of a single commentator? I'm not necessarily denying any of the facts, just saying that someone needs to go back to the sources and attribute all the claims. Ashmoo (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a massive unsourced tag on the entire section, adding duplicative fact tags is unhelpful. This is a good example why well-meaning editors should be discouraged from using footnotes in this manner as it's quite hard to source which statements are covered by which sources. Benjiboi 19:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I only added multiple fact tags so it was clear which statements I felt needed sourcing. But if someone actually adds the sources, of course I have no problem. (The section has been unsourced for almost 12 months, and needs immediate sourcing to avoid being chopped).

Also, I don't understand what you mean by why well-meaning editors should be discouraged from using footnotes in this manner. Which manner are you referring to? Ashmoo (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the entire article is sourced per this section. Those texts support everything that was there when it was written. Hence my statement that editors should be discouraged from sourcing in that manner as we and the reader are still left wondering which statements are attributed to which sources. I have little doubt that pretty much everything in that article is true and verifiable but as it wasn't lifted word for word it's hard to confirm which source states what. Benjiboi 19:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for adding those cites. Ashmoo (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some unclear passages

There's a few passages in the article were it is unclear what they are trying to say. I'll start with this one:

Additionally AIDS prevention specialists note that "down low" means different things even to black men who have sex with other men.[5] Some fit the definition of a man married to a woman secretly having sex with other men while other definitions range to include black men who openly have sexual and intimate relationships exclusively with men but prefer to create identities separate from "a racially insensitive white gay world."[5]

Is it saying that of the men who identify as 'down low' some have sex with both women and men (secretly) and others are openly gay but prefer the term 'down low' to identify themselves as 'black and gay'? Additionaly how this relates to 'AIDS prevention specialists' needs to be made explicit or removed, as the reader expects the connection to AIDS prevention to be resolved.

I don't have the source so I can't fix it myself. If you could copy the source here that would be great. But if you don't have the time, just reply here. Ashmoo (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, I see what you mean but am pressed for time at the moment. Copy/paste doesn't work with google books so I'll revisit the ref to see how the HIV/AIDS connection can be either cleared up or reworked for the article. Banjiboi 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise that you were accessing the text from Google books! In this case, I can just go there myself and sort it out. Thanks. Ashmoo (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mislead

OK I am really quite confused about this article. It strikes me as misleading to suggest that the term "downlow" is anything other than slang for being closeted. The term itself may have originated in the inner-city among Black men and eventually came to be used as slang for closeted homosexuality, but the actual phenomenon has existed in all cultures, among all races for as long as sexual orientation has existed. This article speaks about it as if it is completely unique to American Black men. As I understand it, one of the problems of being DL/Closeted is that people are isolated from communities that affirm them, experience shame under mostly homophobic/heterosexist influences, and believe that their experience is not shared or common. (Like in the fictional film [Brokeback Mountain]). I understand there may be style differences in how it is manifest within Black culture. But perpetuating the notion that such closeted behavior is unique to Black Americans and not a shared phenomenon among all Human beings seems misleading and even divisive. In fact, since that belief is a symptom of closeted thinking, shouldn't that misconception be part of what the article discusses? Closeted homosexuality has existed throughout Human history, among many Peoples. Why is the only reference to that a single line that says "Keith Boykin believes that secret homosexual relations and cruising for sex occurs among all races"? According the Boykin source there has been a great deal of misinformation published about "the Downlow". Isn't this just another example? EyePhoenix (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Benjiboi & I debated this (see the rest of this talk page) and never really came to a full consensus. The current article is our comprimise. If you've got time, It'd be great if you could read our correspondence and add a 3rd opinion. Ashmoo (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashmoo, I've read the discussion but didn't really see too much in regards to this subject. Any thoughts on merging with "Closeted"? EyePhoenix (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Our discussion was long and very verbose. But my first comment in the Remove this article? section basically proposed a merge with Closeted, as you suggest.

After talking to Banjiboi, I have come to support keeping this article, as a discussion of closeted African-Americans and the media discussion of them and having a disambig at the top to the general Closeted article. What do you think? Ashmoo (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that is a good compromise, but it doesn't actually address the issue I am talking about. The article still doesn't describe what "the Downlow" actually is. Reading this, one could easily conclude that closeted homosexuality is somehow exclusive to African Americans. There is one line in the entire article mentioning that closeted homosexuality exists in other "races", and even that is presented more as an afterthought, in a later part of the article. My concern is that the entire article seems to be written from within a closeted culture, and not from outside. As a result, it lacks a more universal, sociological perspective, which I think is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. I would be happy to take a crack at a re-write, or perhaps just add some lines to make sure that context clear. Your thoughts? Perhaps Benjiboy has some ideas too? EyePhoenix (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we take position that 'Down low' is 'closeted homosexuality', I think the best solution would just be to link directly to closeted and move all the info from this article to that entry (I proposed this, but Banjiboi found it unacceptable).

Banjiboi wanted the article to be about the 'phrase' Down low, along the lines of fruit (slang). As well as paying particular attention to it use by mainstream US media for closeted African Americans, and the attempt to link it to the AIDS epidemic.

(I hate to be speaking for Banjiboi, but he is banned from editing at the moment). Ashmoo (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

oK well I certainly don't think it has to be merged, I can see the argument for it having its own article. But do you think the term "Downlow" needs to be explained in the historical, more Human context of "closeted homosexuality" and not a new, African American phenomenon, (which is how this article now sounds)? I think it could be done with a few minor edits perhaps. EyePhoenix (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I never got that impression from reading the article. It always read to me as saying that 'down-low' was portion of closeted gay men who happened to be african-americans. But by all means go ahead and clarify it in the article. Ashmoo (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I was under the impression initially that you agreed with me, and that the definition of 'downlow' is not made clear in this article. But based on your last response, you said that you do see it in the larger context. So I've read the article a few times now, I still get the impression that downlow has little or no relationship to closeted behavior. However, I know how Wikipedia editing often goes, and I'm not about to make changes that aren't backed up by other editors. So I will leave it alone for now, hopefully someone else will come along and improve it. EyePhoenix (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. I'm not sure what you are trying to say, and I think we may be talking past each other. My impression of the article is that it says 'down-low', the word, has many meanings. And that one of the meanings is 'black closeted men'. And then 90% of the article is on the topic of 'black closested men'. Do you understand me?

And what do you mean when you say I still get the impression that downlow has little or no relationship to closeted behavior? Ashmoo (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

oK, As far as other meanings or uses of the term, I dont see what that would have to do with this particular article. This one article shouldn't be about its "multiple" meanings should it? I mean we are talking about its use as a slang term for closeted homosexuality here. Since the term evolved from its original meaning as "secret" to meaning "secret sex", thats really the only other meaning it has. Not sure why the article even refers to any other meanings, as far as I'm concerned its just another messy reference which there is no need for.

To clarify what I meant by the statement is: I've read the article a number of times and, in my perception, the way it's written sounds as if the phenomenon itself is unique to African American men, and not a human phenomenon. The term itself is slang, and used a lot among African Americans, but it refers to closeted behavior. It is the term itself that is new and unique, not the phenomemon. I understand you disagree with this point and feel the article is clear in that respect.

So, my reluctance to edit the article comes from a desire to first get consensus and avoid potential reverting and edit wars. Although you and I are the only ones talking right now, oftentimes someone will come along an screw it up, so to speak. So before I do any significant writing, I prefer to make sure that it will be fully supported by other editors. EyePhoenix (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with everything you said in your first paragraph. I discussed changing this with Banjiboi, but he was insistent so I just let it slide (although I still believe it violates WP:NOT#DICT).

I also agree, 100% that closeted homosexuality (CH) occurs across all human cultures, is as old as sex itself and that 'down low' is just a new word for an old phenomenon. Now, I am not even an American, so I don't really know, but I got the impression (from the sources in the article) that 'down-low' while is sometimes used to mean CH in general, more often is used for Closeted AAs.

My preferred option would be to have a general article on 'Closeted Homosexuality' and have 'Down Low' to be an article on the specific issues related to CH amongst AAs and the media reaction/demonization of closeted AAs, as there seems to be enough sources to support such an article. And of course, the 'down low' article would link to the general article and make it clear that the behaviour is in no way limited to AAs. Does this make sense?

I also agree with your desire for consensus. I think Banjiboi's ban finishes in a couple of days, so I think we should wait till then and see what he/she says. Regards, Ashmoo (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

oK, sounds good to me. EyePhoenix (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Banjiboi is otherwise occupied. Do you think you could make the changes to the article? Ashmoo (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

oK Ashmoo, I've made a few minor revisions to clarify the context, would like your feedback. EyePhoenix (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. I think the article is much more focused this way. Ashmoo (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Although the 'Context' section contains a number of bold assertions that while probably true, require sources. Ashmoo (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I do have some sources but frankly I couldn't figure out how to add them. One is a book and the other is an internet article. Perhaps you can help?

-Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy and Clyde E. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1948), p.651.

-http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/homosexuality/a0000058.cfm

That may help. Still need more for the eroticization statement.EyePhoenix (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just removed the section on "Support Organizations" because I couldn't see any direct relevance to this term. I also have questions about the extent of articles listed in the "Media Interest" section, it seems perhaps a bit excessive and wordy. What do you think? EyePhoenix (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with the 'Media Interest' section. Sure, it is a little high on details, but at the moment it is the section with the best sources, so I'm not really keen change it too much. Ashmoo (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the sources, I just didn't think so many of them needed to be listed as part of the actual text in the article, rather at the end as part of the sources list. But its fine, he clearly did a lot work on it. Is it possible for you to add the sources I found to the article? EyePhoenix (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Context section

The phenomenon of secret homosexual relations and cruising for sex has occurred in most societies throughout human history^{[citation needed]}, usually resulting from the pressures of surrounding hetero-sexist culture. What is unique about the "down-low" is the term itself, and the subsequent media hype that surrounds it.

I chopped the above section for a number of reasons.

1. While I agree that homosexual relations occurs across most, if not all cultures, we need a cite in order to make such a universal claim.
2. 'most societies' is so vague as to be unverifiable. Does it mean 51% of societies, 99%. Does it include pre-urban societies and hunter gatherers?
3. I dispute that 'crusising for sex' has occurred across most societies. I would imagine that cruising requires the participant to live in a large population centre that provides anonmyity. Such cities were rare up until very recently. But more importantly, I think verifying the statement would be next to impossible.
4. 'What is unique about the "down-low" is the term itself'. I'm not sure what this means. Isn't every term or word unique? Ashmoo (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ashmoo, I am confused by your edit. After our discussion above we established that we agree that "secret homosexual sex" occurs in all societies, and that this would be the thrust of the changes I wanted to make. In response to needing more sources, I provided 2 sources above and asked you if you would kindly add them to the article, since I couldn't figure out how to do it. In fact I asked you twice. I also acknowledged that we still needed a source the second part of the paragraph. You seem to have skipped right past my response and cut the most important passage in the article. The entire course of our discussion pivoted on that very idea.

The "Cruising for sex" sentence was Benjiboys, and I left it in because its true; 'Cruising for sex' is most definitely part of any secret homosexual culture, whether urban or rural. If we have no source, I have no problem losing the expression as long as the "secret sexual relations" part remains intact.

The sentence starting 'What is unique about he downlow itself...' was in direct esponse to our discussion above. Again I am confused given our discussion: My entire problem with the way the article was written was that "Downlow" sounded like a unique phenomenon to African Americans, and not a slang expression for closeted homosexuality. It follows the sentence about "secret homosexual sex" and clarifies what is and isn't unique about the expression. Given that we devoted so much time to discussing these changes I am baffled by your decision to ignore the sources I provided above and delete that entire section of the article, citing "no sources". Why did you not acknowledge, assist or at least discuss the entry and the sources I placed above? And why delete the central theme of the changes we discussed? EyePhoenix (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

While I personally agree that closeted homosexuality probably occurs across all or most cultures, the problem is that Wikipedia requires Verifiability not truth. We can't make a positive statement as such no matter how obvious it is to us, unless we can back it up with a source.

I am sorry, I wasn't aware that you were waiting for me to add the two sources you provided to the article. Perhaps I should have been more explicit with what I was expecting.

And as to the sources themselves, unfortunately I don't think they are adequate to support the assertions. First, the website is barely Notable, it is just a website opinion piece from a minor religious organization. And secondly, the Kinsley report was a survey of US sexuality during a single decade, which hardly counts are 'most human societies'. Ashmoo (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I also added a short sentence to the beginning of the article in an attempt to address your concerns. I worded it in such a way as to avoid the need for impossible sources. Do you think this is acceptable? Ashmoo (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your gesture is in sharp contrast to our initial discussion, and seems duplicitous to me. After explaining my reluctance to make any changes and my reasons, you encouraged me to proceed. I thought we were working well together and then this. Above, you skipped past the sources I posted, past my request for help with them, and said nothing about it. Yet you proceeded to delete the same paragraph you approved of just a week before. You say you 'weren't aware', but its in black and white. I asked you twice. It was not necessary to take that approach. You could have discussed it, we could have searched for more sources. Before we continue this discussion I would like an answer to my question. Why do this? EyePhoenix (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I would ask you to assume good faith. I'm not trying to trick you or play and strange political games. I tend to apply WP:BOLD when making edits, and in hindsight I proceeded a bit to quick (and without adequate explanation).

When dealing with unsourced material, my normal procedure is to remove it to talk and discuss it there (as I have done here), in keeping with WP:BOLD. As a token of good faith, I've re-included the material in the article while we sort it out. Ashmoo (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. To cite just put 'ref' & '/ref' tags around the citation like so, ^[1] WP:CITE explains it all. Ashmoo (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ashmoo, I will begin searching for more sources. Of course this may take a while, perhaps we should include "citation needed" tags in the paragraph? EyePhoenix (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you check out the sentence I added to the lede? Do you think this adequately addresses your concerns? Because, since the 'disputed' texts makes such universal assertions and at this moment has no sources, I'd prefer to remove and and re-add the details as we find sources. Ashmoo (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well personally I dont see a problem with citation tags. It establishes the central, most important idea and lets other editors contribute. Besides, I was already happy with the sources I did provide. I am unclear why the sentence you added wouldn't require the same kind of sources that you are needing for the other paragraph you wanted to delete. EyePhoenix (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a response to my claim that your sources are either not-notable (the website) or don't actually support the assertions made by the article (Kinsey)? Citation tags are generally good, but by your own admission you don't have any sources and it will take you a long time to find some. I also, personally doubt that the 'cruising' assertion is even possible to verify to WP standards. Since finding sources it going to take so long I think it would be better to have the sentences on this talk page and re-include them as they are sourced.

This way we avoid have long-standing unsourced claims in the article. Having such a policy will also stop other people coming in and adding there own opinions and promising to 'provide sources later'. Ashmoo (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I did respond to that already, the response to your dismissal of my sources was "...this may take a while, perhaps we should include "citation needed" tags in the paragraph". I also explained that the "cruising" assertion was Benjiboys and that I had no problem losing it. The idea expressed in that paragraph is the primary reason I contributed to this page, as you and I discussed thoroughly above. To answer your question, I don't like the idea of removing that paragraph, but of course I understand the need for reliable sources. Can you speak to the change in your initial approval and sudden turnabout? I am also unclear why the sentence you added at the beginning as a substitute wouldn't require the same kind of sources that you are needing for the other paragraph we are discussing. EyePhoenix (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I've performed any 'turnabout'. I still 100% support the clarification that you proposed, but when I agreed I had always intended to any statement to still obey WP rules of (WP:V & WP:RS). That is all. I put the initial sentence in as a compromise. I thought it was better because it doesn't say 'most' or 'throughout human history' or attribute root causes '...due to heterosexist culture'. All of which seem to make it harder to properly source. I have no attachment to the sentence at all, it was just a suggestion in the hope of making your job easier. Regards, Ashmoo (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flawed article

THe term down low can does not have to mean anything to do with homosexuality. Someone who actually knows what they're talking about needs to rewrite this to take note of that fact. I'm fixing the references area myself and getting rid of anything not having to do with the homosexual facet of the term. A common non-gay usage of the word is when saying that you're dealing drugs but keeping a low profile, you might say "Yeah, I've got what you're looking for, but keep it on the down-low." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.106.96 (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider that a 'flaw' of the article at all. The simple use of the slang term "downlow" as "secret" doesn't require a Wikipedia article to explain it. (This idea was discussed above.) This article is about the term for closeted homosexual sex as often referenced in the Black community, and the subsequent hype that emerged from its use. Maybe you didn't read the whole thing, but it certainly does mention the term's evolution from its simpler use as "secret", and even includes that definition from the dictionary of slang. But this article is about the "Downlow" as closeted gay sex. A simple definition of a slang word does not require an entire Wikipedia article. But this phenomenon does. EyePhoenix (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)