Talk:Bisexual lighting/Archive 1

Question
The article says a criticism is the lighting "perpetuates bisexual stereotypes", but it doesn't explain why. 65.125.21.164 (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The article cited only one source for this claim. Using that source, I have added the answer to your question to the article.  It would be worth searching the web to see if there are others who make this claim, or if the entire idea that this lighting "perpetuates bisexual stereotypes" is the invention of one single author in one magazine article.  I think it was a mistake to put the claim of "perpetuating stereotypes" on the Wikipedia main page if it's supported by only one source, but it's too late to object to that. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 06:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a very weak article - sourced from cosmopolitan! Secretlondon (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of certain examples
I am confused as to the rationale behind removing the examples of bisexual lighting found within both the Legend of Korra and Voltron: Legendary Defender. While calling the lighting used in these shows bisexual lighting could be seen as speculation/theories, couldn't that be said for any of the examples used, given that most (if not all) of them are speculative? Blackpaladinlance (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They were removed because they failed to meet the standards for reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia does not base articles on blogs and other content without editorial oversight or a reputation for fact-checking. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This is just wish fulfillment
This is entirely made up, someone has concocted their own headcanon that the use of red and blue neon which they have confused as pink is some sort of symbol. It should be deleted from wikipedia. LamontCranston (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There do seem to be individuals who've used it deliberately, I.e. post-Sherlock. But the article doesn't contextualize it. The combination of magenta or pink and blue or cyan lighting was picked up from night clubs into cyberpunk genre art many years before anyone associated it with sexual orientation, which means that it's frequently used in fiction and art just to evoke either night clubs or the cyberpunk genre. I don't know how strong this association to the bisexual pride flag is now in a nightclub context, but the article treats it as a very universal association, and that's misleading when it's a widely used scheme that comes with other equally strong associations. Copper Bezel (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Clearly it is not "entirely made up" by Wikipedia as there are references for it. Of course, it is "entirely made up" in the sense that all human culture is "entirely made up" by humans but that is not a valid objection to this, or any other, article. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think what Lamont is getting at is that "bisexual lighting" is a subjective interpretation of color in a handful of films. Not normally the type of thing that gets its own Wikipedia article. Regarding the "references", please see my post below. It really amounts to two articles written in response to a now-deleted tweet, and then a few more articles, all published within the same 2-month period, citing that deleted tweet as the primary justification for "bisexual lighting" being a thing. Realllllllly flimsy. 192.96.65.5 (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It has definitely been used deliberately to emphasise bisexuality. Maybe not in film or tv, but I've personally seen several YouTubers use it, either as a coming out thing, or as a bit of a theme because of their queerness. There's probably more out there SquidKiddd (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

After looking into the sources, this article is completely ridiculous.
I want to provide a brief narrative chronicle of "bisexual lighting" according to this article's references. On October 16, 2017, Twitter user @harleivy posted a now-deleted tweet containing four screenshots from four films, including 2017's Atomic Blonde, Black Panther, and John Wick: Chapter 2, captioned "2017 is the year of bisexuals in bisexual lighting". On February 23rd, 2018, Vice published a piece by Sara David titled "Fortify Yourself with the Beauty of Bisexual Lighting". The article included brief descriptions of the use of blue-and-pink lighting in the films from @harleivy's tweet, in addition to music videos from Drake, Janelle Monáe, and Robyn. On the same day, Vulture published a piece by Sasha Geffen titled "Janelle Monáe Steps Into Her Bisexual Lighting", focusing primarily on the use of blue-and-pink lighting in the music videos of Janelle Monáe. Both articles cite the @harleivy tweet as the primary justification for "bisexual lighting" being an explicit phenomenon. The remainder of the sources cited are articles published after the David and Geffen pieces, from late February through late April of 2018. In short, this Wikipedia page seems to rely wholly on a brief spate of articles, connecting a now-deleted tweet to a handful of popular films. Flimsy. The way it reads now, this article equates the use of pink, purple, and blue lighting with deliberate efforts on behalf of filmmakers to represent bisexual characters. That is a ridiculous contention, one that, again, relies mostly on a now-deleted tweet. I'm not saying that this article be deleted entirely, but it should absolutely be re-written to reflect that "bisexual lighting" is simply a subjective interpretation of a film's meaning. To say otherwise is, well, broadly offensive.

192.96.65.5 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Contrapoints?
I've always seen Natalie Wynn's channel named as *the* example of bi lighting (on youtube) and she's definitely started a bit of a trend. I'm not actually sure how to back this though, with sources and everything, and I don't just want to throw my speculation onto the page, but if anyone can help me out (or disprove me), that'd be great. SquidKiddd (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is reporting a meme as though it were a broader phenomenon.
It is very telling that the evidence that this is a deliberate film technique is completely absent from this entry. In fact, this entire entry can be sourced to a single viral tweet, followed by social media users sending the concept viral, followed by blogosphere "reporting" on the tweet. The first and primary source for the entry is a BBC article that simply reports on social media activity. Worse, this entry misrepresents the content of the article by claiming that the author reported that the hypothesized technique was actually used in film--but that is almost the opposite of what author claims. The BBC article casts doubt on the existence of the phenomenon, and specifically calls attention to possibility that social media users are "reading too much" into it.

All in all, I think this article should be a candidate for speedy deletion for two reasons: 1. It reports on a niche social media meme, 2. The entire article rests on a misrepresentation of its primary sources.73.230.130.27 (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your critique! The article has been edited to better reflect the disputed status of bisexual lighting as a significant phenomena in film, so with regards to that we should be good now. I understand your concern that this is not a notable subject worthy of Wikipedia coverage; however, it does meet the notability guidelines, and Wikipedia has a long history of covering cultural phenomena, including memes that have received significant media coverage (see Category:Internet memes for some excellent examples). Yours, Yitz (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)