Talk:Bisexual community

"community" & other problems
The term "community" really needs to be clearly defined here. FFI, read
 * Community
 * Community (ecology)
 * Community of interest
 * Community of place
 * Community of practice
 * Imagined community
 * Solidarity (sociology)

And the Visibility section is a weaselly way to rationalize the article's existence. The media examples (particularly the fictional) might belong in Bisexuality but have no place here. Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The current definition for the lead sentence states, "The bisexual community (also known as the bisexual/pansexual, bi/pan/fluid community) includes members of the LGBT community who identify as bisexual, pansexual, or sexually fluid." It's supported by this 2015 "Sexuality and Gender for Mental Health Professionals: A Practical Guide" source, from SAGE Publications, page 116, which states, "The identity 'bisexual' can be considered to be an umbrella term which includes all of the following groups and more: [...] People who don't see gender as a defining feature of their sexual attraction (some may also use terms like pansexual, omnisexual or ecosexual - see Glossary)." And this 2014 "Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice" source, from Rowman & Littlefield, page 9, which states, "There are many other identity labels that could fall under the wider umbrella of bisexuality, such as pansexual, omnisexual, biromantic, or fluid (Eisner, 2013)."


 * What "clearly defined" definition are you looking for? How is the lead sentence not clearly defined? Apparently, you mean that we need to use one of the links you pointed to for the word "community." We don't need to. Just like we don't need to link to "community" in the LGBT community article. Per WP:Overlinking, everyday words understood by most readers in context do not need to be linked. Readers know what is meant by "community." Yes, one can argue that "community" is the type of "particularly relevant to the context in the article" aspect that WP:Overlinking is talking about, but it's still the case that readers know what is meant by "community" and that it does not need a link.


 * Also, regarding this, the text didn't fit there. So I gave it its own section.


 * As for media, there is going to be some overlap between this article and the Bisexuality article, including discrimination and visibility text. But, yeah, the media text can be downsized. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2019‎ (UTC)


 * And responded to this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've reduced some "gosh wow" phrasing as soapbox. And I cut an egregious use of the Yahoo Groups homepage (groups.yahoo.com) presented as an example of "bi events" (here, something called Bi Camp) because that trick could be pulled with ANY socialmedia site; all such abuses of logic should be weeded out. And of the six "bi magazines" cited, at a glance half are online only, so not really a magazine, eh? (Also raises the question of w.t.f. "bi media" is, much like there are "polyamory" sites that focus almost entirely on secret affairs a la Ashley Madison, or on hooking up couples with young women, or on the fantasy aspect with no reality basis, and so on.)


 * So, yeh, given such examples of puffery, the article certainly deserves close scrutiny. Weeb Dingle (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * And another thing. Certainly someone with more free time than me would have a citation at hand, but I'm fair certain I read something about how a simple statement probably doesn't need to have three sources, and five or more is overkill — my experience is that Citation Avalanche usually indicates a VERY weak (often invalid) point being bolstered by a pile of nonsense, which (again) flags soapboxing — and the latter occurs twice in a rather brief article. Cue ominous music. Weeb Dingle (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)