Talk:Lipstick lesbian/Archive 1

Archive 1

Derogatory to Bisexual Women

It can also mean a person who isn't actually lesbian but pretends to be, for various reasons such as pornography. The term can also be applied to bisexual females.

HOW DEROGATORY TO BISEXUAL WOMEN-THE PRETEND TO BE Lesbians! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.164.73 (talk • contribs)

I am not entirely sure of the purpose of this comment. Do you mean to say that because the sentance which mentions bisexuality follows a mention that the term can be used to refer to non-lesbians pretending to be lesbians, it implies that bisexuals are pretending to be lesbians? I'm not sure that is the case. I note that this comment was mentioned a while ago, so I am not entirely sure I will receive a response from you, but I would like to keep discourse on this matter open if it is in fact an issue for people. --Scandal 07:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I don't see any necessary connection between the term "lipstick lesbian" and "bisexual female". If "lipstick lesbian" means (in part) "feminine woman attracted to other feminine women", well a bisexual woman need not be feminine, and a bisexual woman need not prefer feminine women either. Of course, a bisexual woman could be "lipstick", but then she's not a "lipstick" lesbian, she's a "lipstick" bisexual. But, I don't think that's a common term. Thus, "The term can also be applied to bisexual females" is not true. --SJK 12:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on that point. I just wasn't sure what the original comment was intended to mean. --Scandalous 22:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, a number of women who do not identify as bisexual will perform girl on girl scenes in pornography. Porn is acting. The same is true of many men who perform in all male scenes. This is quite well documented in porn documentaries.

An interesting "folk" etymology I've come across for "lipstick lesbians" is that it's a reference to women who "put on" same sex attraction as they would put on lipstick. The implication being that they can then wipe it off when they wish to. Again this is acting, for whatever purpose, without genuinely being bisexual or gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.94.168 (talk • contribs)

Contradiction

Currently (August 2006) this article is highly self-contradictory. In the opening sentence: "Lipstick lesbian is a slang term for a feminine homosexual woman who is attracted to another feminine woman, rather than a lesbian who is attracted to a more masculine woman"

Then later: "A lipstick lesbian is a homosexual (or bi-sexual) woman who exhibits feminine gender expression... ...The term applies to a multitude of women, regardless of their preferences in partners. A lipstick lesbian may be attracted to more 'butch' or masculine women or may be attracted to other femmes but is not solely attracted to feminine women."

Any sources or similar stating when the expression was first used, or how it is most widely used now, to help clear this up? --Justynb 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the statement that lipstick lesbians are mainly attracted to other feminine women is completely wrong. Not all butches like other butches, and the other way 'round applies too. Dramaleo94 (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Chapstick v.s. Lipstick

The beginning of the article says:

> A lipstick lesbian, sometimes referred to as a chapstick lesbian

I thought the two phrases were different concepts, i.e. chapstick lesbians are less feminine than lipstick lesbians.

They are. Which is why I'm removing that part of the sentence. - 85.210.146.49 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear

In the 30 years I've been a lesbian I have never once encountered the definition of Lipstick Lesbian given here. Where I'm from (and everywhere I've been) Lipstick Lesbian is simply another term for a "high femme" lesbian. These are lesbians who wears lots of makeup, mostly wears dresses and skirts, high heels, long hair (or extremely fashionable well styled shorter hair), sometimes prissy and almost always very high maintenance. They very very rarely are read as lesbians. It has no connection to her attraction to other women, butch or femme. It is a descriptor of personal style, manner of dress, wearing of said lipstick and other makeup and bears no meaning to her adherence to any kind of butch/femme dichotomy. Lipstick Lesbian is basically the opposite of Diesel Dyke (which again has nothing to do with partner choice, but is a descriptor of a "look")

The article does state

A distinction is sometimes drawn between the phrases "lipstick lesbian" and "chapstick lesbian" and the older phrases butch and femme by suggesting that the former phrases simply refer to appearance, whereas the latter imply mutual attraction of the two types. "Chapstick lesbians" are often considered soft butch.

Which I would say is the only correct part of the whole article. And even then it is flawed. I will refrain from doing any editing, as I would vote to re-write the entire thing, swapping the two definitions around (the one I describe becoming the major definition, and the major one up there now becoming the minor definition) and it would just get changed back. What's the point. 71.193.228.220 (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of your statements but not all. Since the article is pretty short it may make sense to simply add content to hep illustrate what high-femme is. We are writing for a worldwide audience so the term could certainly have different currency and meaning depending on the audience and the user of the term. Benjiboi 04:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as a general comment,

I think it's a right shame, and reflection of misogyny that also within and outside the lesbian community, that the term 'lipstick lesbian' can be used to mean a feminine lesbian, and simultaneously a performance of lesbian sex for the viewing pleasure of men as well as a heterosexual woman pretending to be gay. A right shame indeed! -Mog (14.06.09) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.150.145 (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

hold on, I added info on lipstick butch lesbian's because I am such a person.

...and now the artical might be deleted??? I really am trying to understand and do this correctly. I only added info on another type of lipstick lesbian. I am a Lipstick Butch, I am FtM, trangendered, I dress as a female, I am a lesbian. I did try to follow the rules, I may have missed something????. lipstick butch is also mentioned on the external links at http://belladonna.org/lipsticklesbian.html on the glossery page, Habitstock22 (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

improvement of Wiki articles

If the reason for wikipedia having an article on lipstick lesbians, is to provide information on the subject.. Then how does the inclusion of the existance of male ID'ed butch women, who dress as lipstick lesbians present a problem? What is confusing about the pharagraph? Why should this small section of the GLBT (etc) be denied representation on Wikipedia? Ending confusion... and the opinions that this just one persons experience is a reason for leaving the infomation, not deleting it. Does anyone here really think I am the ONLY FtM transgendered person in the world who dresses as a female? Maybe the bias that real lesbians are suposed to look like guys is too thick? Let the paragraph stay. Is the purpose of the artical to inform on the subject or only to represent the girly girl/porn star/fake lesbian stereotypes? If you would like the passage to be structured better, tell me what would help you understand it better. Someone's personal confusion should not be a reason to remove content. Habitstock22 (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Lipstick/chapstick difference

Kso...Am I the only one who thinks Chapstick lesbian should be a redirect to Soft butch, not here? As a chapstick lesbian myself, I find this strange. Chapstick lesbians and soft butches are lesbians that fall in between butch and femme, lipstick lesbians are very feminine lesbians (and often attracted to other lipstick lesbians). There's a bit of a difference. Stealthy (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Extremely feminine"?

In the intro it describes a lipstick lesbian as "lesbian and bisexual women who exhibit extremely feminine gender attributes, such as wearing make-up (thus, lipstick), wearing dresses or skirts and having other characteristics associated with feminine women".

How is wearing makeup and skirts/dresses extreme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.86.168 (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Half of article missing?

The lemma starts:

Lipstick lesbian is a phrase with two related but very different meanings depending on location.

Next is:

In the United States of America, the [...]

which obviously is the first of the two very different meanings. Next is a section United States, which naturally again deals with the first meaning. And then: nothing. Unless I missunderstood something very basic, the second meaning, which seems to be valid outside the US, is entirely missing. It might help if someone in the know could add it (again?, I did not search previous versions).--130.149.205.108 (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The term lipstick lesbian also refers to bisexual women, and even to heterosexual women

As seen with this edit, an IP editor stated, "Bisexuals are not lesbians.", and I reverted, stating, "You are taking the term 'lesbian' too strictly; do read the Lesbian article." As seen with this edit, that person showed up again (but with a different IP), stating, "Lipstick LESBIAN refers only to LESBIANS, which is something completely different from bisexual. Bisexuals are not LESBIANS. Language about LESBIANS applies only to LESBIANS. It is extremely lesbophobic to claim otherwise.)", and I replied, "Again; read the Lesbian article; the term lesbian can refer to any female same-sex attraction. Stop WP:Edit warring and IP hopping, or I am likely to get this article WP:Semi-protected." I meant any female same-sex romantic and/or sexual attraction. As seen with this edit, the IP returned, stating, "It is lesbophobic to conflate lesbians and bisexuals.", and I replied, "WP:Dummy edit: You are incorrect, per the term lesbian not having one definition, much like the term bisexual does not have one definition. But I'll take care of this matter; I suggest you sign in if you are Saint91 WP:Edit warring." As seen with this edit, the IP replied with a WP:Dummy edit as well, stating, "'Lesbian' here refers to 'lesbian' as in 'women are solely attracted to other women.' Since it's a noun, it means only lesbians, and not bisexuals. This term has NEVER referred to bisexuals."

I questioned if the IP is Saint91 (talk · contribs) because of edits Saint91 has made to the article, including this one about heterosexuality, and because Saint91 is often quick to WP:Edit war. Whether the IPs are Saint91 or not, the IPs are wrong. Yes, the term lesbian is commonly understood to mean a woman who is exclusively romantically/sexually attracted to women, but it is rare that the term is defined in that exclusive way in dictionary, scholarly or media texts; Googling it shows that. Like this this 1999 Current Assessment and Directions for the Future source (that I've used in the Lesbian article and argued with at the Lesbian talk page) from the National Academies Press, page 22, states, "There is no standard definition of lesbian. The term has been used to describe women who have sex with women, either exclusively or in addition to sex with men (i.e., behavior); women who self-identify as lesbian (i.e., identity); and women whose sexual preference is for women (i.e., desire or attraction). The lack of a standard definition of lesbian and of standard questions to assess who is lesbian has made it difficult to clearly define a population of lesbian women." And for a more recent source, see this 2011 The Lesbian Premodern source from Palgrave Macmillan, page 136, which states, "But even for scholars who are more comfortable with sexual diversity (such as the readers of this book), 'lesbian' can seem problematic, both for its instability of meaning and its supposed inapplicability to long-past worlds. No one these days is really sure what 'lesbian' means. Are lesbians born or made? Do lesbians delight in sex with women only or can the term encompass bisexuals as well?'" And like I mentioned at the Domestic violence in lesbian relationships talk page, "If it's a romantic and/or sexual relationship between teenage girls or women, it's usually called a lesbian relationship, regardless of sexual identity. This is similar to how if it's a romantic and/or sexual relationship between teenage boys or men, it's usually called a gay male relationship or a gay relationship. That is, if the couples are not termed same-sex relationships or homosexual relationships instead. That stated [...] the terms women who have sex with women and men who have sex with men exist."

Contrary to what the IP editor asserts, the term lipstick lesbian, though commonly referring to lesbians, refers to lesbian and bisexual women. And sometimes to heterosexual women. The following sources show that: This 2009 Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1 source from Sage Publications, page 524, states, "A common depiction of lipstick lesbianism includes conventionally attractive and sexually insatiable women who desire one another but only insofar as their desire is a performance for male onlookers or a precursor to sex with men." This 2012 Intersectionality, Sexuality and Psychological Therapies: Working with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Diversity source from John Wiley & Sons, page 67, states, "Likewise, more recent iterations of feminine forms of lesbianism such as 'femme' (e.g. wears dresses/skirts or form-fitting jeans, low cut tops, makeup jewellery), or 'lipstick lesbian' (e.g. a lesbian/bisexual woman who exhibits 'feminine' attributes such as wearing makeup, dresses and high heeled shoes), are an attempt to define as both lesbian and feminine." And this 2013 Bisexual Women: Friendship and Social Organization source from Routledge, page 55, states, "Young women exposed to mainstream media outlets are seeing expressions of the same-sex desire between women much more frequently than ever before. However, mainstream images of same-sex desire between women are very specific, meaning they are often of hyper-feminine women ('lipstick lesbians')." In 2009, SheWired commented similarly on this topic; see its "Hollywood's Obsession with Lipstick Lesbians and Bisexuality" article. And this Wikipedia article's Criticism section currently isn't even focusing on lesbians. And there is a debate above on this talk page about the term lipstick lesbian referring to bisexual women: #Derogatory to Bisexual Women.

I know that the above is WP:Too long, didn't read for some people. But if you can bear reading all or some of that, what are your thoughts on this dispute? NinjaRobotPirate, since you recently helped out with a different LGBT definitional matter, would you mind helping out with this one? I will also go ahead and alert WP:LGBT to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me of the debates that my friends and I would have when we were teenagers: "Does Poison count as a metal band?", "Does oral sex count as sex?", "Does a feminine bisexual girl count as a lipstick lesbian?" OK, maybe we didn't actually debate the last one, but it's not so far removed from the second. In the second case, my teenage self would say, "No, because that's taking individual words that compose a phrase too literally. Otherwise, phone sex would be sex, too." Same thing here. Taking individual words too literally forces a really strict definition when real-life people rarely fit into neat little boxes that you can categorize. So, I'd agree with Flyer22 and the sources that she has listed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

LOL, NinjaRobotPirate. Not only do I appreciate you helping to sort out this dispute, I appreciate the story you relayed here. I'll wait to see what, if anything, others have to state on this matter. If no one else comments about it, I'll add back "bisexual" to the lead with the aforementioned Intersectionality, Sexuality and Psychological Therapies: Working with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Diversity source supporting it. It doesn't have to be placed in the WP:Lead sentence; since lesbian is commonly understood to mean "not sexually attracted to men," the alternative definition of lipstick lesbian can be second. After all, the lead of the Lesbian article begins with the definition of lesbian that is first and foremost understood, and cited, by laypeople. And we don't have to mention the heterosexual aspect in the lead, since this is a fairly small article and the heterosexual aspect is not explicitly discussed in the way that it is noted above. The Criticism section is more like a passing mention type of thing at the moment. If the IP reverts again, and there are no other opinions about this dispute here at this talk page, I might start a WP:RfC on this matter. If the IP keeps reverting without discussion, well, reporting the IP for WP:Disruptive editing is an option. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, we're talking about clueless straight teenage males here, as if it weren't obvious. I don't think "does oral sex count as sex" really exists outside of that demographic. Maybe the IP editor would be willing to accept the edit if it were sourced. I guess it can't hurt to wait for more input, though. I guess one possibility is to use "women who have sex with women" instead of "bisexual" if the IP refuses to accept "bisexual". I have a feeling that might not be any better accepted, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate (last time WP:Pinging you to this discussion because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies, or that you currently have this talk page WP:Watchlisted), it's actually widely believed that oral sex is not "real sex"; we cover this in the Oral sex article and its subarticles (Fellatio and Cunnilingus) and the Virginity article, and elsewhere on Wikipedia, with WP:Reliable sources. As recently as 2013 and 2014, many people still held this view, and I'm certain that it's the same here in 2015. While oral sex not being "real sex" and the concept of technical virginity are very prevalent among heterosexual teenagers, a lot of adults view those topics in the same way. As you can see in the Oral sex and Fellatio articles, it's not uncommon for gay men to consider oral sex as "not real sex." Worldwide, penile-vaginal penetration prevails as "real sex"; it's rare that anyone discounts that as sex, while oral sex and everything else is more iffy depending on people's definitions of sex. Anyway, yes, I will wait for others to comment on this lipstick lesbian matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What is gained here by adding "bisexual" to the lead sentence of an article about lesbians? If the term "lesbian" itself has broader meaning than just "women who are exclusively attracted to other women", which I agree that it does, then it seems to me that the place to explore that definition is in the Lesbian article itself, not here. It doesn't seem necessary for purposes of inclusiveness to tack on "or bisexual" to the lead of a short article about a term applied primarily to lesbians. Otherwise, why not in addition to bisexual add pansexual, queer, etc. Funcrunch (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe re-writing to acknowledge that this is about popular usage and no one is proposing a clinical definition of lipstick lesbian. Thus: In popular usage, the term is sometimes used to characterize the gender expression of a woman who identifies as bisexual. For example X and Y. With citations. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Funcrunch, thank you for weighing in. As for your first question: Because the WP:Lead should accurately reflect what the topic is about, and we should be going by what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. I intend to further expand the lower part of the article with information about how the term lipstick lesbian is used, and the last thing I need are editors objecting to that material because of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Like I noted above with WP:Reliable sources, the topic of lipstick lesbian is not just about lesbian women. Like I also noted with WP:Reliable sources, the term lesbian is not primarily applied to women who are exclusively sexually attracted to women; yes, "exclusively sexually attracted to women" is what is usually understood when someone states "I'm a lesbian." But research consistently shows that a large number of women (perhaps the vast majority) who identify as lesbian are not exclusively sexually attracted to women. And, yes, the broadness of the term lesbian is covered in the WP:Lead paragraph of the Lesbian article, and is indicated at other parts of the article. And the "not exclusively sexually attracted to women" aspect is detailed in the Sexuality and lesbian identity section of that article. Just like the term lesbian does not only refer to women who are exclusively sexually attracted to women, the term lipstick lesbian does not; this is especially the case for lipstick lesbian from what I've seen and studied over the years. And I will add "pansexual, queer, etc." if I come across WP:Reliable sources supporting that, but that is not lead material. The term lipstick lesbian is commonly discussed with regard to bisexuality, so it is WP:Lead material. Furthermore, pansexual is commonly considered a subset of bisexuality, as noted in the Bisexuality article (which I linked above) and on its talk page, and as noted in the Pansexuality article and on its talk page. The bisexual vs. pansexual debates are among the most annoying debates I've been in on Wikipedia.

Bmclaughlin9, that's a nice idea. Thank you for weighing in. Flyer22 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

For a similar recent WP:IDON'TLIKEIT case with regard to lesbian identity, there is this edit by an IP at the Butch and femme article. I reverted the IP here and warned the IP for WP:Disruptive editing. That IP also edited the Lipstick lesbian article a little before that; might be the same aforementioned person I've had a problem with at this article. Yes, the terms butch and femme are primarily applied to lesbians, but they are not only applied to lesbians, and Wikipedia will reflect. Those who dislike that this is an encyclopedia and that we are supposed to follow the rules of this encyclopedia with a prejudice toward WP:Activism should go elsewhere. WP:Activism is something I very much dislike, and I've made it clear on my user page. No WP:IDON'TLIKEIT case will get in the way of me editing Wikipedia how it should be edited. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

More stated here at the WP:LGBT talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: See the archived discussion about this at WP:LGBT, where I provided more WP:Reliable sources. With this edit (followup edit here), I expanded the article. I will expand it further at a later date. And Bosstopher, regarding your removal of this text (which had a WP:Claim issue), I understand why you removed it. But keep in mind that, as noted in discussions at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:BLP noticeboard, use of the Daily Mail as a source on Wikipedia is not banned. It can be used on a case-by-case basis, such as regarding a video game, popular culture, or an exclusive interview. Viriditas has commented on this times before. The text you removed was simply referring to a cultural matter. Since I've expanded the cultural material, the text would no longer come across as WP:Undue weight if added to the Definitions and society section. That stated, I'm not pressing for the text to be re-added. Flyer22 (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Emergence

The term is thought to have emerged in wide usage during the early 1990s. A 1997 episode of the television show Ellen widely publicized the phrase.

There are several people who track the emergence of such terms, so we should be able to nail it down to a time and place. I was in San Francisco throughout this decade, and I recall first hearing it around 1993-94, but I suspect this might be later than when it first emerged. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we definitely need better wording for the emergence of the term. Flyer22 (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There are people like Peter Tamony who collect and archive such information. Unfortunately, he died in 1985. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lipstick lesbian. 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/20081002031455/http://g3mag.co.uk/issues/g3april2007.pdf to http://g3mag.co.uk/issues/g3april2007.pdf

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The Lesbian Flag

The lesbian flag applies to all lesbians not just lipstick lesbians when you take away the lipstick mark. -- Vexthesmol (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not how the creator intended it, the creator kinda hated Butch lesbians. I'm mind off thinking the controversy over this flag should be included. BeffyNicole (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Controversy Over the Flag

I'm wondering if it's worth adding the controversy over the flag as there has been a significant amount of push back against this flag now because of the creator making racist and biphobic comments. BeffyNicole (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

If there are legitimate published sources that verify the controversy, then there's no reason why this subject cannot be included in the article. So far, I've only found this:

July 18, 2010 – https://thislesbianlife.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/my-worst-date-ever/ (Updated)

July 23, 2010 – https://thislesbianlife.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/a-butch-at-a-bar/

July 28, 2010 – https://thislesbianlife.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/lipstick-lesbian-pride/

June 26, 2018 – https://medium.com/@lydiandragon/a-lesbian-flag-for-everyone-cef397b89459

Pyxis Solitary yak 10:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

General Improvement

Hi! I am working on adding to this page! This page does not have many reliable sources or considerable content, and what content is there is threadbare.

In order to improve upon the page, I am planning on adding more specific content on the defition of a lipstick lesbian- what is currently there is not very extensive. I also want to add in more about representation in media and general view of lipstick lesbinans.

I’d love any suggestions or advice! Here are some relevant sources I've gathered. Wanhedalegend (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)wanhedalegend

Hello, Wanhedalegend. I see that you are a WP:Student editor. Keep in mind that this article is about the term. Make sure that your sources are specifically about lipstick lesbians, not simply those titled femme. I state this per WP:Synthesis. If the source doesn't state "lipstick lesbian," don't use it to add material about lipstick lesbians. Also, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it is best to avoid primary sources; see WP:Primary sources as well. And older sources are likely to be outdated for some things. Yes, this article currently is not much bigger than a WP:Stub, but that's reflective of the available literature on this subject, which is mainly about the term lipstick lesbian. There is not much more to state about the topic than what the article currently states. If what you are looking to add more so concerns the femme topic, rather than the term lipstick lesbian, then you should add that material to the Femme and/or Butch and femme article instead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for replying Flyer22 Reborn! I took your advice, and reworked what I intended to write, and have also posted a draft of my edit on my sandbox !Wanhedalegend (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, Wanhedalegend. I like your username, by the way; it's a reference to Clarke from The 100, right? I created the Lexa article years back (in 2016). I've recently been re-watching the earlier seasons because one of my brothers decided that he wanted to binge the material with me via Netflix when we have the free time. He hated season 1. And one of my sisters, who I got into the series years back (in late 2015), is always criticizing the show. She essentially hates it, but she's yet to watch much of season 4 and hasn't yet seen the following seasons. So maybe she'll change her mind.

Regarding your draft, what you have there is not about the term, but we can work some of it in. There are punctuation and redundancy issues with your draft. By punctuation issues, I mean that periods need to be after sentences (which you were probably going to do anyway), punctuation is placed before references (not afterward) per WP:REFPUNCT, and there should be no gaps between references. As for redundancy, your text gets into material that is already covered in the article. Your text talks about how lipstick lesbians are considered to align with heteronormative ideals and that lipstick lesbians are still subject to the male gaze, and still found acceptable due to their femininity, and how lipstick lesbians are able to achieve visibility because the media sees homosexual passion between the two women as "not real", and that lipstick lesbians are presented as hyper feminine. But the article already relays, for example, "Some authors have commented that the term lipstick lesbian is commonly used broadly to refer feminine bisexual women or to heterosexual women who temporarily show romantic or sexual interest in other women to impress men; for example, Jodie Brian, in the 2009 Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1, states, 'A common depiction of lipstick lesbianism includes conventionally attractive and sexually insatiable women who desire one another but only insofar as their desire is a performance for male onlookers or a precursor to sex with men." So some of the redundancy in your draft should be cut. Other redundancy can simply complement material already in the article. For example, by saying, "This is echoed by [so and so], who says [...]."

You should also use WP:In-text attribution when you quote. Don't just throw a quote in there without letting the reader know who is being quoted.

On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page since it's on my watchlist. If you'd rather that I don't ping you to this talk page, just let me know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22Reborn! Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy week. My favorite season of the 100 is definitely season 2- I feel that the character development was at its peak, as well as the plot. I am pretty biased however; due to my love of Lexa.

Regarding your comments (which are extremely helpful)- I have modified my draft and trimmed it down. I have addressed your concerns about redundancy and have attempted to follow your suggestions. I have fixed the punctuation errors and followed the guidelines of WP:In-text attribution when quoting sources.

Thank you so much for your help and unending patience with me!Wanhedalegend (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wanhedalegend: Your contributions are welcome, but you should also observe Wikipedia's editing guidelines when doing so.
1. Refname rules: "Names should have semantic value, so that they can be more easily distinguished from each other by human editors who are looking at the wikitext. This means that ref names like "Nguyen 2010" are preferred to names like ":1"."
2. WP:CITEVAR: "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it."
Those of us who Source edit need to distinguish the wikitext. Therefore, instead of using <ref name=":0"> for a citation, you use <ref name=Black1990>. Additionally, the article uses citation templates for sources, so should you. Wikipedia makes this easy to do with the templates included in the editing toolbar under the "Cite" button as follows:

– Select the location on the page layout where you want to include the source.

– Click "Cite" on the editing toolbar and the "Templates" window appears.

– Click "Templates" and the selections for cite web, cite news, cite book, cite journal appear.

– Choose one of the templates.

– Click [Show/hide extra fields] to open all the parameters available.

– Enter details about the source in the corresponding parameters.

– Click [Preview] to review the citation.

– Click [Insert] and the cite template is automatically added to the article.
Use your Sandbox to practice how to use the editing toolbar, and any type of editing you are not yet experienced in making.
Pyxis Solitary (yak) 03:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wanhedalegend, yes, your addition is an improvement from what you originally wrote. Thank you. After these tweaks to the content by Pyxis Solitary, I made these tweaks. Unless speaking of the term or quoting someone, there's no need to put "lipstick lesbians" within quotation marks. The quotation marks you used came across as WP:Scare quotes. Also, Wikipedia doesn't use the curly form of quotation marks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Pyxis Solitary! I wanted to let you know that the students are using VisualEditor and at this point in time there is no way to edit the refnames as far as I am aware. Source mode has been a little confusing to most of the students since they're not familiar with html or source code. I'll try to help where I can with this, though. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Hi Pyxis Solitary! Thank you for helping! I have reviewed what you suggested, but I still am confused on what I need to change the reference name to. I have reached out to Shalor for clarification and hope to be able to fix it! Wanhedalegend (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)wanhedalegend

@Wanhedalegend: You use a reference name that reflects the source. For example: if a book you're using as a source was written by author Jane Doe and published in 2006, you would use <ref name=Doe2006>; if an article you're using as a source is from the New York Times, was written by John Smith, and published in 2006, you would use <ref name=SmithNYT2006>. These are just examples, but I'm sure you get it. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 07:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Wanhedalegend, Pyxis Solitary, I changed the reference names in the sandbox, so they should show up as unique reference names now instead of :0 and similar. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

___

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Lipstick lesbian Pride Flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Lipstick lesbian "flag"

The one reference being used to support the flag is this, which is a dead link. Furthermore, this is an example of citogenesis, unfortunately. The flag was added in this edit and then it began appearing elsewhere on the internet (and in that presumed SDGLN article) after that point. It's inclusion here was used as reason for it being the "official" flag for the term, which was never the case. It is being included here completely as a self-promotional activity. Silverseren^C 03:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It is standard operating procedure for editors to try to add the archive of an article when the URL becomes a dead link -- which is precisely what I did. The lipstick lesbian flag has been published in many legitimate newspaper, magazine, and website sources. Wikipedia editors follow reliable sources, not personal opinions. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Citogenesis is something we always have to account for and deal with. Also, the AfterEllen source you gave presents my point precisely. It reads "A “Lipstick Lesbian Pride” flag is also found on Wikipedia and a few other websites, but is also not a widely-used symbol.". Silverseren^C 04:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

All of these sources are kind of hilarious. This new Horniman Museum one not only notes that everyone in the community in question hated the flag and resulted in the original blog post being deleted, but then the flag used in the article is sourced to...wait for it... "By xles - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41430367". So, how is this flag whatsoever representative of the subject of this article? No one liked it and everyone references back to it being used in this article. Silverseren^C 04:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The "xles" referencing is the image file on Wikimedia Commons (which is a modification of the original) -- not the Wikipedia article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Is xles the person who owned that blog and made the flag originally? Because otherwise it can't be a "own work" citation on Commons, as that would be a copyvio. Silverseren^C 04:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia are different entities, even if Wikipedia articles use WC files. Questions about files on Wikimedia Commons are addressed at WC. The first step begins here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You still haven't presented any argument on why the flag should be retained on this page. At best, it might deserve it's own Wikipedia page, but all the sources presented here not only reference this Wikipedia article and the inclusion of the flag here before those news/media articles were written, but even note that it is not a supported or liked flag by those in the community in question this page describes. So, under WP:DUE, why should it be included in this article? Silverseren^C 02:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"Argument"? Don't know wtf you're talking about. I have no interest in debating anything with you. Open a discussion about the image with other editors, and deal with the copyright issue at Wikimedia Commons. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This is that discussion and you are the one that reverted the removal of the flag image. But you aren't presenting a reason why the image should be in the article. Silverseren^C 03:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: per the revert summary, the lipstick lesbian flag is WP:CITOGENESIS. From information online, the flag was created by Natalie McCray in 2010, who then shortly thereafter added to the article in this diff along with a link to her own blog. It's entirely improper for it to appear here, even when considering the royalty free rework done by The Anome in December 2019. I agree entirely with everything else @Silver seren: has said on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the McCray weblog. You obviously did not bother to look at the San Diego Gay & Lesbian News source. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually I did read it @Pyxis Solitary:. I also read the linked blogpost by Xan, who explained why they created that comic. Xan did not create the flag, nor to my knowledge any of the other flags included in their collage. The original flag was created by Natalie McCray, and added here in 2010. This is the very definition of WP:CITOGENESIS. A Wikipedian creates content, cites it on Wiki, it then spreads in a form of circular reporting. It is not appropriate for it to be cited here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere in the SDGLN article does it reference Wikipedia, nor does the "Pride Flags: A Guide" by comic artist Xan. Nothing in the SDGLN source is linked to Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere in the SDGLN article, nor the linked blogpost by Xan does it say that Xan created the flag either. Xan merely created a helpful collage of flags to explain their meanings. The history of the flag is immediately visible to anyone who peruses the changelog of the article, per the diffs that have been provided. Respectfully you appear to be misunderstanding WP:CITOGENESIS. The flag was created by a Wikipedian in 2010. Its use since then does not change the facts that its spread is dependent on circular citing from Wikipedia in the decade since its first appearance. That spread is citogenesis. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I knew about the lipstick flag BEFORE I saw the lipstick lesbian article. Are you saying that knowledge of the flag can only be attributed to this article? Furthermore, where in Wikipedia does it say that an image cannot be used in an article if it is an illustration or imitation of an art work? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 15:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I and @Silver seren: have said that the spread of the flag stems from its addition to Wikipedia in 2010. Your anecdote about knowing about the flag prior to knowing about the Wiki article is meaningless. The issue is that the source of the flag's notability is because of Wikipedia.

where in Wikipedia does it say that an image cannot be used in an article if it is an illustration or imitation of an art work? That is not, and has not been the issue. The issue is WP:CITOGENESIS. If you think that the issue is one of rights and attribution per Creative Commons I would suggest that you take a refresher in WP:CIR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"the source of the flag's notability is because of Wikipedia" -- this is strictly your opinion. You have no evidence to support your statement. Your POV is irrelevant. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 15:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

this is strictly your opinion. You have no evidence to support your statement Incorrect. Please see the diffs dating it to Natalie McCray adding it to the article in 2010, as well as multiple sources which state that state she was the original creator. It is not OR, nor my POV to state that Natalie added the flag to Wikipedia, and that it only spread after she did so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Even if the editor known as User:Nmdesigns was Natalie McCray and she was the one who in 2010 added the flag file to the article, she did not trademark the design and in the 11 years that have passed since then the design has been copied and sold by many flag retailers. The flag file used in this article was originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in 2015 by User:Xles, whose contributions to WC began in 2008. The current file was revised in 2019 by User:The Anome, who has been contributing to WC since 2004.
Some articles that have written about the lipstick lesbian flag have used information from Wikipedia ... but not all of them. The SDGLN source did not. The article published by Gay Star News did not either (but although it informed the reader about the flag being made in 2010 and linked to the expired weblog, it used the wrong file design for the segment).
Before you get on a high horse and lecture other editors about their competence, you should look in the mirror. The Cosmopolitan article you linked was not used as a source, nor the Yahoo reproduction of the Cosmopolitan article. The Horniman article used the revised version of the Wikimedia Commons file and published information that did not appear in this article -- but it was removed as a source. The Heckin' Unicorn source was not used in the article. Tumblr is not used as a source in Wikipedia (but it's ironic that most of the LGBT and queer flags used in Wikipedia can be traced to Tumblr and weblogs). Grand Arts Gazette was not used as a source. WCSU Pride Center was not used as a source. The weblog This Lesbian Life was removed from the article.
A source that copies information from Wikipedia and republishes it is a WP:CITOGEN source, yes, but using an image file from Wikimedia Commons in a Wikipedia article is not -- and you have not provided a related Wikipedia guideline about the use of image files in articles. If your idea about file use were to be the procedure, every flag design and symbol uploaded to WC (or Wikipedia), regardless of the editor who uploaded it, would have to be removed from every article where they are used.
Your reason is senseless. What I see here is an editor afflicted with a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• The argument for WP:CITOGENESIS is so broad that it seems that, simply because the flag was inserted on Wikipedia at the same time it was created, all sources about it can be declared invalid, making it impossible to include. However, many of the sources mentioned include facts about the flag that were not present on Wikipedia. Clearly, those are not citogenesis - they must have researched that themselves. There is therefore no basis for claiming that their mention of the flag in and of itself is citogenesis.
  By way of illustration, suppose a group of people creates a movie and at the same time they write a Wikipedia article about it. And for this thought experiment, this unnotable movie article does not get caught and deleted. The movie ends up going viral and gets reliable sources written about it. The fact of its existence appeared first on Wikipedia, but other facts about it were researched by its sources. Could the article afterwards be deleted because it 'appeared first on Wikipedia' and all the sources about it are therefore citogenesis? Obviously not. But maybe it only went viral because it was on Wikipedia? Doesn't matter. Once reliable sources were written that were not simply repeating what was on Wikipedia but actually engaged in independent analysis of the claims that were on Wikipedia, then it isn't citogenesis. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Except that many of the sources specifically note or cite the Wikipedia usage. Furthermore, there is no actual WP:WEIGHT for inclusion, especially when there are sources saying that the flag is disliked by the community in question and is one of the reasons why the flag was taken down by the original creator. Silverseren^C 04:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

And many do not and instead reveal they did research not based on Wikipedia by adding additional facts, like the one you mention. If many do not like it then that fact could perhaps be added, but it does not mean we have to remove the flag. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

"the flag was taken down by the original creator". Where is this idea coming from? The creator of the lipstick flag did not remove the flag from her weblog, This Lesbian Life. The weblog expired -- which is what happens with many weblogs. The accusations made against Natalie McCray and the flag she created were slung in a Medium personal blog in 2018 -- and the Medium blog was deleted after the defamatory imputations were circulated on Twitter and Tumblr, and after the response by McCray. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: that analysis of broadness is flawed and incorrect. The issue is not because the flag was inserted on Wikipedia at the same time it was created, all sources about it can be declared invalid. The issue is that it's notable stems from the fact that it was added to Wikipedia at the time of creation. Clearly, those are not citogenesis - they must have researched that themselves. I would direct you in this instance to the rather sizeable list of examples on the WP:CITOGENESIS page, in particular the examples for Eleagnus, Joseph Bazalgette, and Playboy Bunny, as they show how even reliable sources doing independent research, without mentioning Wikipedia, can still be citogenesis, because the root source is eventually Wikipedia. Your strawman anecdote is meaningless.

I concur with Silver's reading of WP:CIRC.

Note I have placed a notification on Wikipedia talk:List of citogenesis incidents as that seems to be the project page for incidents like this. Also I am tempted to place a similar notification on WP:TEA due to this discussion in February 2021. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Note I have asked here Wikipedia:Teahouse#Possible citogenesis at Lipstick lesbian on the Teahouse about other venues that might be appropriate for notifications for external help resolving this issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

None of those 3 citogenesis examples are what I am saying. There are sources talking about this flag that clearly did independent research. They are reliable and are not citogenesis. That "it's notable stems from the fact that it was added to Wikipedia at the time of creation" is, ironically, original research on your part (I take notable to mean noteworthy, not in the GNG sense). Crossroads ^-talk- 02:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

No, those three examples are exactly what you're saying. Unless you're accusing the Museum of London and Institution of Civil Engineers (in the case of Bazalgette), The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Trees and Shrubs (for Eleagnus), and the New Straits Times, and the author of Storms Never Last: Memoirs of a Playboy Bunny (for the Playboy Bunny) of not doing independent research in their specific cases before incorrectly including information that first appeared in Wikipedia? Such a bold claim would require extraordinary evidence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

You're right, it looks like the source you included before is referring to a different blog post of the creator, where she made "bigoted comments" that made many in the lipstick lesbian community not want to use her flag or be associated with her anymore. It was that blog post that was eventually taken down. Silverseren^C 02:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Ooooh, now I know why you two are here. I took a moment to look into McCray and what the comments were and the blog post was her being extremely transphobic and biphobic. And the lipstick lesbian community kicked her out because of it and made a new flag that includes butch and trans lesbian colors. I was wondering why you both showed up on this article and were so adamant about keeping this flag, since it's not the usual topic area you're seen in. Silverseren^C 02:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

You should retract your personal attacks and assumption of bad faith. I've had many of these articles in the LGBT topic area on my watchlist for a long time and commented because citogenesis was being misunderstood. Pyxis Solitary has comments in the talk page archive and so has been here for a while too. I even offered above to include that many do not like the flag. As far as McCray's comments, I don't know what they are, but the source you linked says "reportedly". Could be, but that is tangential to whether this flag is used enough to be noteworthy. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

What personal attacks? You almost exclusively edit trans-related topic areas, so I was just noting that. I was confused on why this article since it didn't have anything to do with trans topics. Now I understand how it does. As for McCray, it appears that the flag in question isn't used by the lipstick lesbian community and there is in fact a new flag, shown in that same article, that is used. So if we're going to have any flag included in the article, we should have the actual current one that is used. Silverseren^C 03:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the orange/purple flag Silverseren? If including a pride flag is due here, which I'm not entirely convinced on but we've not really been discussing that so far, I'd support including that one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

You connected my and PS's involvement with a person's alleged transphobia and biphobia and said that was why we were "adamant" in keeping the flag. And no, I edit numerous sexuality and gender articles, and some others on unrelated topics. However, the trans-related articles get a lot more editing traffic from editors in general. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

"...it appears that the flag in question isn't used by the lipstick lesbian community and there is in fact a new flag, shown in that same article, that is used." There is only one "lipstick lesbian" flag, and it is the original design with the red kiss on the left corner. The colors of the lipstick flag were copied and used to create a lesbian pride flag, and because the derivative design uses the same colors some people have conflated it with the original (lipstick) flag. No one knows who created the stripes-only flag. Incorrect information about the stripes flag has been circulated and regurgitated by multiple sources that have not bothered to research the difference between the two flags. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

"Ooooh, now I know why you two are here....I was wondering why you both showed up on this article and were so adamant about keeping this flag, since it's not the usual topic area you're seen in." – What a foolish thing to say. You don't even have the wherewithal to find out the editing history of Wikipedia editors before putting your foot in your mouth, as you just did.
When you attacked me in the PinkNews RS/N discussion, I could have hauled you to AN/I for so blatantly violating WP:NPA and casting WP:ASPERSIONS -- but I chose not to. However, it's clear by your self-indulgent comment here that you are misguided if you think you can vilify me (or any editor) and accuse me of behaving in an underhanded manner. Stop the personal attacks ... or you will be dealing with the consequences at AN/I. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Upon more reflection, as well as re-reviewing the history and sources, I don't think any pride flag is DUE here. This article is about a term that refers to a specific subset of lesbians and its history. That history in particular goes back well before McCray created her version of the flag in the 2010s. Any version of the flag, whether the disputed citogenesis version by McCray or the more recent orange/purple flag are supposed to be representative of the wider lesbian umbrella, and not the narrower subset of lesbians that the term "lipstick lesbian" refers to historically or presently. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE would apply here Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. Despite the flag being known as "the lipstick lesbian flag", I don't think there's been any evidence put forward linking the flag and the term, beyond the shared nature of the words "lipstick lesbian", and certainly not within the three sources that have been used to cite for it recently. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Either way I tend to feel it's inappropriate as a lead image; listing a flag there implies a degree of "official"-ness, universal acceptance, or centrality to the subject - it has to meet the WP:LEADIMAGE criteria of being the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. The sourcing for this doesn't really satisfy that - SDGLN is newsblog-ish, and I'm not understanding why it's being cited at all when better sources exist. What the other sources say, though, makes it more clear why it can't be the lead image - people referenced them above, but the controversy over the flag (mentioned in higher-quality sources here and here) makes it hard to interpret them as presenting it as a natural and appropriate portrayal of lipstick lesbians as a whole, especially when the sources also emphasize that it is not widely-used. I feel it could be mentioned in the body (where we could mention the controversy surrounding it which, again, is part of what higher-quality sources mention when bringing it up, and therefore fairly inseparable from discussing it if we're going to mention it at all), but it seems hard to justify presenting in the lead as if it is the natural and appropriate representation of lipstick lesbians as a whole when higher-quality sources than the one we're using currently specifically note that it is controversial. Also note that the flag is also present on Lesbian flag, though since it is not the lead image there it may not be as pressing; if we do determine the whole thing is citogenesis then it probably needs to go there, too. --Aquillion (talk)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 7 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wanhedalegend.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)