| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rainbow capitalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Capitalismo rosa from the Spanish Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
Someone please specify in the first paragraph that this article is primarily describing a Western phenomenon - and that while rainbow capitalism may be a useful concept for understanding cultural/economic shifts in other societies, the authors of this article focused the article on the West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:4600:B583:29D3:93A9:9B4A:6B00 ( talk) 03:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
RonBurgundyStayClassySanDiego.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Cjoson100. Peer reviewers:
Kaitcrain.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Entire article is WP:Original research
DaddyCell ( talk · contribs), from what I see, this entire article is WP:Original research (which is why it is good that tagged Tom Morris tagged it as possibly containing original research), and the WP:Non-English sources are an issue. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
-
Flyer22 Reborn (
talk ·
contribs): I've also tagged it as needing a copyedit and being based only on primary sources (videos of political activists talking on YouTube seems like the epitome of unreliable sources). There's a whole lot of assertions in here that require some actual evidential backing. This sentence to pull out a random example:
- With all that, and contrary to the ideas of equality, traditionally the political left has treated the LGBT movement (as it happened with feminism) as extravagance or cultural singularities which fragmented its political agenda, without attending the specific needs of non-heterosexual people and reducing their problems to the rest of the working class.
- There's plenty of sentences like this where a lot is being said but completely failing to follow the principle of Show, don't tell. Like, it is a reasonable thing to say that many on the political left that have a Marxist class-based analysis of oppression struggled to cope with activism based around other identity factors (race, gender and sexuality, say). But if Wikipedia is going to claim that, it needs to show not tell: show a few representative examples and point to a source that backs up that assertion rather than simply assert it with neither a citation nor an example. — Tom Morris ( talk) 07:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I arrived at this page randomly from the list of pages tagged with {{ Copy edit}}. I took care of that, but there is still so much work to be done. To anyone with a vested interest in this page:
What is good:
- Lead - well-written, descriptive, clear, short
- Pictures
- Number of references
- Links to other pages
- Formatting and effort that went into its creation
What needs to be fixed:
- This article is written like someone's personal essay. This is not encyclopedic. I've listed each of the specific problems in turn below.
- The language is too flowery and elevated. I took care of some of this, but there are still some needlessly long words in there. Articles on Wikipedia are meant to be understood by as many readers as possible, not to impress a teacher with one's ability to use a thesaurus.
- The section titles are not clear and descriptive. Phrases like "Underground phase" need to be explained in the text below; phrases like "From sexual liberation to the gay male ideal" need to be rewritten to sound less like ways to grab a reader's attention and more like a statement of fact. Also, titles in both English and Spanish ("Alternative Pride, Indignant Pride and Critical Pride (Orgullo Alternativo, Orgullo Indignado y Orgullo Crítico)") do not belong on the English Wikipedia.
- The article is based entirely on "expert" opinions, but written as though these opinions are facts. While this makes for a great synthesis essay, on Wikipedia facts are things like "Spain is a country in Europe". Anything else needs to be phrased, "according to John Doe, pink capitalism has resulted in the gentrification of" -- followed by a reference. While there are plenty of references here, it is important to note that on Wikipedia, footnotes and references are distinct things. You can't state someone's opinion and then just reference the work it came from. You must first state THAT it's an opinion and then WHOSE it is before you continue.
- There needs to be more on the history of the term and definition. There's plenty of info on the implications and results of pink capitalism, but nothing (outside the lead) that talks about the objective history (of how the term developed and of how the thing that is "pink capitalism" came about). Are there examples of pink capitalism before the 20th century? Leads should never contain information not mentioned elsewhere in the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.
- The information in this article refers almost exclusively to Spain and the United States. Again, outside of the lead, there is no general discussion of pink capitalism. There is also nothing on pink capitalism in South America, Asia, other countries in Europe, etc.
- All the information seems to come from the perspective of the LGBTQ community. There are no answers to questions like: Do businesses consider pink capitalism to be a real thing? Do businesses have a term for when they market for a specifically gay community? Do politicians mention pink capitalism? Do economists mention pink capitalism? etc., etc. I think some secondary and tertiary sources could be helpful here.
I know I'm asking a lot, but this is what it takes to make a good Wikipedia article. I'd suggest an editor with the time and interest to research to read LGBT history for an example of style and content, and then try to tackle all of the issues with this article. There's a good foundation here, it just needs some more work. -- 2ReinreB2 ( talk) 16:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, this page is too verbose and opaque. Intelligibility is sacrificed by an author trying to sound academic
- Only ending up sounding highfalutin and self-aggrandized. It needs to be made more concise in its points, and less "flowery" in its diction. I would rewrite the article - as I have worked as an editor for many years - but honestly I can't understand the meaning of some of the author's /authors' expressions; and I have revised and simplified Wiki articles before and it has offended (the literary integrity of some) contributors and only ended up in an editing war... I don't even bother. 123.2.12.74 ( talk) 09:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Almost nothing on this article is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.91.229.74 ( talk) 14:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Somewhere under the rubble of overwhelming verbiage there is truth there. It is simple truth, and just needs to be stated in simple, mature manner.
123.2.12.74 (
talk) 09:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Somewhere under the rubble of overwhelming verbiage there is truth there. It is simple truth, and just needs to be stated in a simple, rational manner. 123.2.12.74 ( talk) 09:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
If anyone fancies a bit of drive-by copyediting; this article needs to have its citations spread out far more thinly, as some sentences are way too over-cited as of present. -- Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) 12:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2022 and 3 March 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Socal2025,
HonorsHannah (
article contribs).
I've completed a partial rewrite of this article to comply with Wikipedia standards. It had been tagged for WP:NOTESSAY since 2016, and it had excessive and often poor quality sources. I've removed a considerable number of the sources and replaced some of the opinion pieces and YouTube videos with scientific journals. The article still suffers from disproportionate focus on the United States that needs to be addressed in the future. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)