Talk:Media portrayals of bisexuality

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

LGBT studies This article is of interest to 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, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Media Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments

It's been confirmed that she and Harley are (were?) romantically linked, and she likes the Joker. Does she count? 98.14.15.12 (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has Volgin been bisexual? He's just gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.4.66 (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest working on that in the article

Colonel Volgin. The current text reads, "It is implied that Volgin is bisexual. Major Raikov and Tatyana (EVA) were both his lovers; both of whom attest to Volgin's extreme love of sadomasochism. Through in-game dialogue, EVA reveals that Volgin was an accomplice of the Katyn Forest Massacre, where he beat several Polish prisoners to death." If you can cite a source in that article for your assertion, then this article can be fixed. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Britney Spears is clearly not a bisexual woman and only did the kiss with Madonna for attention. It can be argued that neither Madonna or Lady Gaga are really true bisexual women either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.163.99 (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Media portrayals of bisexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401073231/http://www.afterellen.com/people/2010/3/emily-schromm-interview to http://www.afterellen.com/people/2010/3/emily-schromm-interview/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106225852/http://www.glbtq.com/literature/bisex_lit.html to http://www.glbtq.com/literature/bisex_lit.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally glad that the page wasn't deleted but only changed to a redirect, so its a satisfactory result. I've moved the unsourced content to a sandbox, as I noted in the deletion discussion, while moving some of the sourced material to the List of fictional bisexual characters and List of bisexual characters in television pages. Per the closing comments by Sandstein, who said, "it's up to editors to determine whether and what to merge," @User:Kingsif, @User:Panini!, @User:Kolma8, and anyone else concerned, I'd propose that each of us, take a section, go through it, either incorporating the information to the main page or to related pages, so that all the content isn't lost. That's just my thoughts on it. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The caption reads that the pride parade, displayed as the first picture of the article takes place "somewhere in the United States," while the picture contains individuals displaying numerous LGBTQIA+ modified Canadian flags. I have not seen any evidence to support this claim, so unless there is objection or citation, I intend to either remove reference to geographical location, or change it to somewhere in Canada, due to the presence of Canadian-affiliated flags.

I was relying on what the caption on Wikimedia says, that's why I said that. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Media_portrayal(s),_singular_or_plural. -sche (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think its representative to have all men in the top/main image. I think for the image at the top of the page we should include a mix of men and women instead of all 6 people being men. Perhaps some non-binary people in there too. We could either remove some of the men out of the current image and replace them with women and non-binary people, or have a similar box of bisexual women, and then one for non-binary bisexual people, both placed directly under or alongside the image of the six men. Helper201 (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that sounds like a good plan. Maybe it could be a mix of men, women, and non-binary people who are bi? Historyday01 (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01, I'm opening this up as a proposal and invitation to be potentially compiled by someone else as I'm not sure how to logistically splice together a multi-image collection of photos akin to what has already been done for the 6 men. Do you know where a request for such an compiled image collection in this manner may result in some more attention and progress? Helper201 (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could post about it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, at least, and it could definitely get attention that way. Historyday01 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some photos of people cited as bisexual we could potentially splice together for the bisexual women image. The people in the photos in order from left to right are as follows:

• Katharine Hepburn
• María Becerra
• Victoria De Angelis
• Drew Barrymore
• Azealia Banks
• Dodie

Each one of these women have a cited entry on List of bisexual people (A–F), List of bisexual people (G–M), List of bisexual people (N–S), or List of bisexual people (T–Z). We could also just use this multiple image format instead or cropped the images together.

Helper201 (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this for now. I'm open to feedback about what other users think about this and if anyone wants to crop these images together like how the one is for the men, I'm fine with that too. I could still use help with something similar for non-binary people. I think it would also be good to get at least one image of a fictional bisexual man, fictional bisexual women, and potentially a fictional bisexual non-binary person as well, being this is an article specifically about media portrayals. However, I've found the availability of free to use images for fictional characters difficult to obtain. Helper201 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to substitute Dodie for Judy Holliday so this compilation has one more historical example for better balance, akin to how the image of the men. Helper201 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with fictional characters, it is a challenge. In terms of people either Rebecca Sugar or Dana Terrace, who are both bisexual, as both created shows which had LGBTQ characters, or possibly one of the following: Natalie Sims, Janet Hardy, Mae Martin, Janelle Monáe, Princess Nokia, and in terms of men, Kevin Barnes.

In terms of bisexual characters, the only ones I can think of off the top of my head are:

• Luz Noceda
• Harley Quinn (and Poison Ivy)
• Princess Bean
• Korra (and Asami Sato)
• Marceline the Vampire Queen
• Kaldur'ahm

I see there are currently two image compilations. Is the idea to merge both of those together? Or to have them be separate? I think we could definitely do one of characters? Anyway, there might be some other characters on the

List of bisexual characters in anime, or List of bisexual characters in animation pages, especially in live-action shows. Historyday01 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I think its best we keep the men, women, and non-binary people as separate compilations. Purely for the reason that I think an image of 12 or more people complied together would be too cumbersome. Helper201 (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. There's a bunch of people listed at Category:Bisexual non-binary people, and I think at least some of them have photos. Sometimes, it can be a challenge to get photos of people, sometimes, due to Wikipedia rules. Like pages such as Vivienne Medrano (for which I was instrumental in getting it be approved as a page, dealing with some less-than-encouraging reviewers) are great, but there's no image of her on there as of yet. Historyday01 (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to doubt whether the men, women, and non-binary image complications were a good idea. This article is specifically about media portrayals of bisexuality and these people being bisexual themselves doesn't necessarily say anything about how the media portrayed their bisexuality or bisexuality in general. Then again, I don't want to see this work go to waste, so maybe they could be moved to the bisexuality page or other bisexuality related pages? Or maybe I'm just overthinking it. Helper201 (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe if we stick with people who had a media impact, then that would be fine? If that makes sense. Historyday01 (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the compilation images of bisexual men, women, and non-binary people remain on this page, or be moved to another page, or removed? Helper201 (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the above I originally placed a compilation image of bisexual women and non-binary people on this page for better balance and representation as previously only a compilation of 6 men was used as the articles main/top image. However, I'm now questioning whether these image compilations have enough relevance to be included on this page. This article is specifically about media portrayals of bisexuality and these people being bisexual themselves doesn't necessarily say anything about how the media portrayed their bisexuality or bisexuality in general. Then again, Historyday01 has put forward the view that perhaps we could stick with "people who had a media impact". However, how to we qualify this? I would rather not see the work done by the person that created the compilation of the 6 free to use images of notable bisexual men go to waste, nor the compilations I put together, so would appreciate if people think they should be removed if perhaps we could move them to other pages related to bisexuality (perhaps the bisexuality page?) so as this work is not gone to waste. Your thoughts and feedback would be much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think non-binary folk are the same as bisexuals, so probably should be removed. If there's enough substance for a new article go ahead for just non-binary go and make it, but my kneejerk reaction is that there probably isn't right now. Ortizesp (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is this category, so people can be bi AND non-binary: Category:Bisexual non-binary people Historyday01 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ortizesp non-binary people can be bisexual (as well as straight, gay, lesbian, pansexual, etc). A person's gender and/or gender identity is not the same as a person's sexuality. Helper201 (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but they're separate concepts. So pictures of non-binary folk shouldn't be listed on this page unless they're specifically bisexual.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The non-binary people pictured on this page are stated to be bisexual on their respective pages and/or on one or more of the following pages: List of bisexual people (A–F), List of bisexual people (G–M), List of bisexual people (N–S), or List of bisexual people (T–Z). Helper201 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess this is a none issue, and we can close the RFC. Ortizesp (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I posted the RFC was internal conflict regarding whether simply showing images of bisexual people is relevant enough to an article regarding the "Media portrayals" of bisexuality. Helper201 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed (or Replaced) Unless they are depicted specifically portraying bisexual characters or roles, these are not actually media portrayals, and seem inconsistent with the article's text. The lede refers to "television series, cartoons, video games," etc., so I would expect a selection of images from these media would be more relevant. e.g. David Bowie is an actor, not a character; but Ziggy Stardust is a character, so Bowie in his Ziggy persona outfit might make sense, but not Bowie as a casual actor at some non-descript event. Definitely do not portray actors who just happen to bisexual in their private lives, unless they specifically portrayed bisexual roles in media. By the same token, I would not refrain from depicting non-bisexual actors if their movie/TV/cartoon/etc. role was a bisexual character. (again, preferably a media image embodying that role). Walrasiad (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good point there, which should definitely be considered. Historyday01 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove or Replace I agree with Walrasiad's reasoning. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]