User talk:Kitsims

"Openly" gay

Hi, I see that you're editing a bunch of pages removing the word "openly" from sentences that say the article subject is "openly gay". Is there a reason why you're doing that? — Toughpigs (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello (sorry, haven't used this function on Wikipedia before, hope I'm replying in the right place)

Two reasons. In the context of Wikipedia, I think "openly" is redundant: you're stating someone's gay, backed up with sources, so clearly they're open about it. It's simply a fact: they're gay. If they weren't open about it, you couldn't make the statement. (Even if you were pretty sure they were gay, you could only refer to rumours and allegations).

More generally, I dislike the term 'openly gay' as, however subtly, it carries an implication of shame. If you think about how it's used, it tends to be in the context of a quality that for whatever reason, people think should be hidden or masked - for instance it would make sense to say 'he openly supported naziism' or 'she was openly contemptuous of him'. Now, I realise many people think being gay should also be hidden or masked. But wikipedia should be neutral on that question, so just using the phrase 'gay' is more appropriate.

Out of interest, how did you notice I was doing that?

(By the way, I realise I forgot to log in. My username is Kitsims if you want to keep talking!)

Hi Kitsims, I moved the discussion over here. :) Yes, I get your point about the phrase "openly gay" implying that there is (or should be) a stigma. I do think that it's worth discussing the "coming out" moment which many celebrities go through — there's a part of their lives where they simply don't talk or answer questions about sexuality or relationships, and then there's a semi-official "yes, we're dating" interview or Instagram post. I think that's worth documenting, both for the relevance to the individual's life as well as the way it reflects on the dominant culture, but now that I'm thinking about it, the word "openly" is not an effective way of documenting that. If that's worth doing, then it's probably best done by writing about that decision, and referencing the interview. So I agree with you, good idea. :)

I noticed that you were making those changes because I have the Brian Hutchison article on my watchlist. You can tap the star near the top of the page to "watch" that page, and then check your watchlist to see the latest changes to all of the articles that you're watching. I saw that you'd taken out the word openly by looking at the "diff" for that edit, which shows what's changed since the previous revision. Then I clicked on the User contributions link for the IP address, and I saw that you'd made similar changes to six other pages, so I thought I'd ask you about it.

Let me know if I can help you with anything. One last tip: when you write on a talk page like this, you can sign your post by typing ~~~~ at the end. Take care! — Toughpigs (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your reply. I completely agree - coming out is a massively important moment, especially if you're in the public eye. A lot of articles discuss the subject's sexuality by saying "X publicly announced they were gay on x date" and I think that's absolutely the best way of approaching it.

Thanks for the tips about using the site - as you probably gathered, I'm not the most tech-savvy!

Kitsims (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)