Talk:Fag hag
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on June 11 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
|
This article was nominated for deletion on January 6 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 |
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. |
For the June 2005 deletion debate on this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fag hag.
| This page has been Transwikied to Wiktionary. The transwiki process is complete. |
Margaret Cho has often claimed to be the ultimate fag hag and there is little reason to doubt her. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 11:15, 21 Aug 2002 (UTC).
I love Margaret Cho, but is the quotation really appropriate for an encyclopedia article? --Azkar 02:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm disappointed - I thought I invented the term "dyke tyke"! --chrisjwmartin 21:55, 10th May 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Stub?
Could you really count this article as still being a stub? Celestianpower 13:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Nah. I've removed the stub tag. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 04:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fag stags
I admit I've never heard the term "fag stag" but I don't think they're all that rare. I've known several straight men who for whatever reason prefer the company of gay men. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 23:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] i hope it was OK to edit
I have never edited a wikipedia article so I hope it is OK for me to edit based on my own experiences. My ex-wife was a, self described, fag hag and I guess I am a fag stag, though I have never heard that expression. To the me the hallmark of the relationship is a deep and loving friendship. The kind that is, to my experience, impossible to achieve where there is sexual tension or the possibility of tension.
I'm surprised on how little I have found on the internet regarding the subject. I found an article at http://www.angelfire.com/ny2/Aternyde2/faghags.html but it seems odd to me. He talks about "converters" and "mommys". I don't get that. To me "converters" are just people having difficulty getting their emotions straight and the "mommy" thing is part of a lot of relationships. In my experience it is more about friendship. But that's just me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.121.4.10 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC).
[edit] Dyke tykes
I've created a new dyke tyke page, so I changed the "dyke tyke" link to point at that rather than gay slang. I believe that the phenomenon of dyke tykes is different enough from that of fag hags that it warrants its own article.
Zorblek (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Non-fair-use photo
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that the use of this photo in this article is not legal fair use. Stuff like this can get Wikipedia in a lot of trouble, potentially making it difficult to use any fair use photos, even legally. Unless somebody can successfully argue that this is, in fact, fair use, I'm inclined to remove the image from this article. —johndburger 15:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] contradiction
"Fag hag is a slang term, which is either abusive or affectionate" "The term is used, without the intent to insult" so is it usually used as a form of insult/abuse? --Yiyun 06:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Original research
Why is this page tagged as original research? It is not apparent from neither the talk page nor the article history why it is tagged. Please explain why so any issues can be resolved or the tag will be removed. MartinDK 13:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's certainly full of unverified claims—there's not a single source cited. —johndburger 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Unverified claims are a problem, but they do not constitute original research. I'm considering removing the tag, pending any discussion here. I'm proposing changing the tag to {{citations missing}}. --Ssbohio 05:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Done. The citations are coming along, but I thought the {{citations missing}} tag would still be more useful than the original research one. --Ssbohio 02:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- What would be nice would be if the {{OR}} template was changed so that the person adding it would have to provide a more specific reason. All too often these articles are just tagged without reason because the tagger believes that his divine insight is self-evident. The result is an article that is not improved and a train wreck of tags. MartinDK 09:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
