Talk:Bisexual theory

Not much on this topic

Critical.prvrsn, you may be aware of this, but there is not much on this topic. It seems to me that this is why the article currently relies so much on the 2002 Clare Hemmings source. In that source, Hemmings talks about "approaches [that] are important in the development of a critical bisexual theory," but "development" is the keyword. I don't see that this topic, which you've called a field in the Wikipedia article, is much of a field at all. From what I've known of the literature, certain scholars have tried to propel this topic to the same level, or close to the same level, of recognition as queer theory, but it never got there. This is no doubt why this 2009 "Playing with Butler and Foucault: Bisexuality and Queer Theory" source states, "Hemmings (1997b) quoted one scholar as saying that 'bisexual theory is not as sophisticated as queer theory' (p. 32)." It talks about highlighting "the usefulness of a bisexual inquiry in queer theory." I'm not saying that this article should be deleted or merged elsewhere, but I am saying that there aren't a lot of sources out there specifically on the topic on bisexual theory, and that merging this topic into another article should be considered. It also seems that you have engaged in WP:Synthesis by naming "scholars who have been discussed in relation to bisexual theory" when reliable sources haven't framed the matter in that way or haven't framed some of the content as bisexual theory. If reliable sources have named all (not just one or two, or a few) of the scholars you named as those who have been discussed in relation to bisexual theory, you should source that. The source(s) should actually use the word "bisexual theory." You shouldn't label anything in the article as being a bisexual theory, or an aspect of bisexual theory, unless a reliable source states that it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 Reborn, thanks for taking the time to look through the article. To address the points that you flagged: My understanding of ‘field’ is a branch of study within a larger discipline—I believe bisexual theory therefore does constitute a field within critical theory/queer theory. While bisexual theory has historically existed on the margins, there are sufficient sources to support its status as a standalone article that refers to a specific theoretical approach. As you will understand, this article is in its early days of creation, and I can work to provide additional sources to support this in the coming days. I don’t feel that the Hemmings quotation you provided constitutes a reason to not have an article detailing engagements with bisexual theory across almost three decades. The high-ranking status of the Journal of Bisexuality, which has been running for almost two decades, attests to bisexual theory as an enduring field across many disciplines. Thanks for flagging the WP:Synthesis issue; I am new to Wikipedia and learning about the conventions. I will also attend to this section, providing sources that name these people as bisexual theory scholars. Critical.prvrsn (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Critical.prvrsn, I questioned use of "field" because of what I stated above about the scarcity of commentary on this topic. I'm not saying that "field" shouldn't be used, but I am cautious of its use in this case. I wasn't saying that the "Hemmings quotation [...] constitutes a reason to not have an article detailing engagements with bisexual theory." And I don't think that Journal of Bisexuality "attests to bisexual theory as an enduring field across many disciplines." It covers bisexual issues, yes, but that doesn't mean it "attests to bisexual theory as an enduring field across many disciplines."

On a side note: Looking at the recently created Bi Academic Intervention article, which focuses on a group that "provided a forum for discussing bisexual theory," are you and LornaMCampbell related in some way? I don't see that you are WP:Student editors. Your edits coinciding to cover bisexual theory and you being aware of the Bi Academic Intervention article soon after its creation points to a connection between you and LornaMCampbell.

Since this article is on my watchlist, I ask that you don't WP:Ping me to it. I'll see the replies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

And it seems to me that the currently small Bi Academic Intervention article would be better off merged into this one; see WP:No page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I created the Bi Academic Intervention article during the Wikipedia for Peace editathon which took place in Vienna last week. As a new LGBT editor I encouraged Critical.prvrsn to participate in the editathon remotely. During the event participants collaborated to create articles both remotely and together in Vienna. LornaMCampbell (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bi Academic Intervention article was created before the Bisexual Theory article. Now that the latter has been created, I have no objection to the former being merged with it. LornaMCampbell (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

LornaMCampbell, thanks for explaining. Per WP:TPO, editors generally shouldn't break up another editor's comment; so I put my original comment concerning you back in order. I also pushed my additional comments back up to where they were for flow. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 4 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zy175311460 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)