Talk:Pink Triangle (audio manufacturer)

Sexual orientation

The name implying the sexual orientation of the company directors was very important; especially at that time. Being gay in the late 70's was still very difficult. Choosing to use the gay symbol for a non gay-aimed company name was unique. Both directors, Jackson and Khoubesserian were interviewed a number times on television by Denis Lemon Channel 4, Fisher Dilke BBC and others. How old are you editors; 10, 15 20....? You lose sight of history if not every aspect is covered. Having read through some of the editor CV's here I can see you are all of one type: hope does User:JjjjjjddddddJjjjjjdddddd put it: I believe our project closer to "reducing the sum of human knowledge", and creates a huge loss of information. Chumps, you people are chumps and only seem to take notice of "celebrity" when some of the most important knowledge slips through your fingers like sand. I propose the entire Pink Triangle (audio manufacture) article be deleted as it has no place in the sum of human knowledge.

The sexual orientation of the founders is unimportant as far as the article is concerned, except by way of explaining the origin of the name "Pink Triangle". I'm trying to find a way to mention it without putting undue emphasis on it. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we agree on the current revision, as far as emphasis? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Also I think we should bring back the category. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with the category because the personal lives of the founders is irrelevant to the company's products, which should be the main emphasis of the article. The products were sold in mainstream hi-fi stores and were not specifically marketed to gay people. Other opinions are welcome, maybe people from WikiProject LGBT studies would be interested to comment, but to me it seems this is a company whose founders happened to be gay rather than a gay-oriented company. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

An argument could still be made that it was good for the gay community, and thus part of the category. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

A lot of things were good for the gay community without being particularly significant aspects of LGBT history. We categorize on WP:DEFINING characteristics of a topic, not on WP:TRIVIA — in order to make a valid case that it belonged in Category:LGBT history in the United Kingdom, you would have to show reliably sourced evidence that it's considered a significant part of LGBT history. We don't categorize Apple as LGBT history just because it has an openly gay CEO, for example, because there's no gay-specific context to what the company does. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going off the title, which is an LGBT concept, to categorize it that way. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

In the end it's just the name of the company and its products. The pink triangle symbol probably was not as well known in 1979 as it is today, and in any case despite the company's eyebrow-raising name, neither of the owners made an issue of their sexual orientation. Nor did the hi-fi press judging by the link given to the 1990 High Fidelity interview. If significant coverage can be found in LGBT-oriented publications, then LGBT-related categories could possibly be added, but I don't think it's likely - these guys are not celebrities, just respected audio engineers. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)