Talk:Girlfriend/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

girlfriend, boyfriend, girl friend, boy friend

The headlined words: girlfriend is the same as girl friend, and likewise for boy friend; this article is so incorrect and misleaden by common street definitions. Also, ladyfriend and girlfriend mean the same thing. Furthermore, girlfriend & boyfriend & ladyfriend & guyfriend all are non-sexual but are used in euphamism for "lover" as is the word "sweetheart". The sourced pages are incorrect and typed by people that are unqualified to make such assertations--attempts to redefine words to fit modern slang. 67.183.157.148 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sexual relationships between males and their girlfriends are common. In such cases, as these relationships are often based on lust and selfish interests, the term "girlfriend" may also be a synonym for "prostitute", as per traditional Asian culture, because unless the boyfriend pampers the girl and supplies her various material goods for her enjoyment (cash, status etc. is also included), no girl is actually intersted in a relationship with a boy. In other words, a girlfriend often provides sexual enjoyment to her boyfriend for "payment" (not necessarily money).

Source: common sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.29.12 (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it really a lesbian?

In the article there is a picture of two lesbian girlfriends. I think it is obvious the human on the left is a male, despite the image description claiming otherwise. I think we should remove this picture, or even better, swap the picture with one more attractive lesbians. If these two are indeed lesbian girlfriends I do not think this picture is an accurate representation of lesbian girlfriends in society today. 86.170.153.248 (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow that's incredibly offensive. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Photographs

I removed two photographs from the article. One, Image:Man and Woman.jpg, was labeled as "A young man with a possible romantic girlfriend"; the other Image:Chen Yu-Rong,Wang Ping,on Asian Lesbian Film and Video Festival.jpg, was labeled "A woman and her possible romantic girlfriend". User:Ctjf83 disputed this removal, so here is my reasoning.

"Possible romantic girlfriend" is not good enough, or even close to good enough, for a photograph to be used to illustrate this article. (Note also the file descriptions of neither photo indicate that any of the subjects are in fact anyone's girlfriend.)

We would not illustrate the article Jin Mao Tower with a picture captioned "Possible photograph of the Jin Mao Tower", or the article David B. Hill with a picture captioned "Photograph of a person who may be David Bennett Hill", and so forth. Right?

Granted, in certain exceptional circumstance, we can use photographs that are not of the subject of the article. For example, if for the article USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42) we could not obtain a photograph of that ship we could arguably substitute File:USS Coral Sea.jpg with the caption "USS Coral Sea, a Midway class carrier like the Roosevelt and of similar configuration" or something, and so forth.

If we were unable to obtain a photograph of an actual girlfriend with reasonable effort it would arguably OK to use these photos with a caption to the effect of "Person who is not necessarily a girlfriend but is more or less in the pose and stance we might expect of someone who is". However, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to obtain photographs of actual girlfriends for this article. They are common enough.

Furthermore, Chen Yu-Rong are Wang Ping are identified individuals that are quite possibly still alive. They were both (apparently) attendees of a lesbian film festival, and seem to be reasonably simpatico, but that proves little of their actual relationship and we shouldn't state a relationship simply from inference.

So absent some compelling counter-argument we should remove these photographs. Herostratus (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove the "possible" then. I know it is probably WP:OR, but two clear lesbians one with her arm around the other, it implies (ya, ya, I know OR again) to a reasonable person that they are together. CTJF83 06:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I uploaded File:Love Knows No Boundaries.jpg CTJF83 06:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Among other things, there was no evidence that the two women gave permission for their photographs to be used. And no evidence that it was licensed for use on Wikipedia. You need permission to view it on Flickr which is where it was originally sourced. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Images?

Does the article really need one? 74.182.64.131 (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I see no reason why not. — Hunter Kahn 03:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, an editor removed the current image (edit summary was "I would contend that the photo is distracting in this context (no illustration is necessary here), and better suited for anoth". I'm not sure I agree with that. Herostratus (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, not to be heteronormative or anything, could we maybe get a heterosexual couple? They're a lot more common and so it's a much better example. And it's not like it should be that hard to get. There must be almost a half-dozen Wikipedia editors who have girlfriends, maybe one of of them can upload an image. Herostratus (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Audiolover's edit

I've been asked why I removed it. It was first reverted by User:Bonadea with an edit summary saying that content removed without explanation was being restored. It was replaced and I also reverted saying "what seems to be a pov edit (changing "him or her" to just "him", also restore mention of sexual relationship in first sentence". POV refers to WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Girlfriend. 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/20120510051117/http://www.yaelf.com/toe.shtml to http://www.yaelf.com/toe.shtml

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) 08:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)