Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

"Is homosexuality a paraphilia: The evidence for and against"

A new article on this topic has just been published (in Archives of Sexual Behavior), summarizing many of the correlates of the homosexuality and the paraphilias. Should anyone decide any of its contents should be integrated into the mainpage, it was published open access, so it can be downloaded and circulated freely: [1]. The article contains a very substantial reference list to the primary literature.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't the right place to promote or publish articles you have written, no matter how relevant they might be to the topic. Someone963852 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I respect your opinion and desire to protect WP. I very carefully checked WP:COI before typing anything (and perhaps this conversation might be better had at WP:COI/N), and not only am indeed allowed to add that link/article to the talkpage, I am even allowed to add it to the mainpage.

From WP:COS: "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies" (which it very obviously does). In other words, not only have I merely obeyed the relevant guidelines, I have restricted myself even more than I had to, by sticking to the talkpage instead. (Moreover, I also out myself on my userpage, which I also do despite COI saying very specifically that it is not required.) So, I think I have earned a little more AGF than this.

That said--and repeating that I am enitrely permitted to cite my article on the mainpage myself if I so desired--how about we instead discuss how and whether the mainpage could be improved given a new RS on the topic. If nothing else, my article has an extensive reference list that will lead you to many primary sources, should you prefer them.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Simple answer, James, is that for an article as controversial as homosexuality, I would demand that a significant representation of medical/psychiatric literature state that homosexuality is a paraphilia before placing that info in the article, or asking a vague question, much like a teaser for the 11 o'clock news. Paraphilia suggests an abnormality.

More difficult answer, and the most relevant one regarding this article is that I'm coming by again to state that the entire article needs to be rewritten. Someone, or a lot of someones, need to go to the library, access three or four textbooks about human sexuality, note what they cover--in an outline form, then find the best sources available to address the topics in the outline. Just about every thread on this page can be resolved by rewriting the article. Material in the article is not determined by who wants to see what in the article. Instead, the material in the article should summarize what the best sources have to say about homosexuality. When addressing psychiatry, that should be a review of literature from reliable sources. When about religion or science, the same. If the number of folks arguing/commenting about what the article lacks or does not, actually brought a book to the table to help rewrite the article, it would be done in short order. --Moni3 (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you say "state that homosexuality IS a paraphilia"? The conclusion of my article (and the content of the medical/psychiatric literatures) is that it is NOT. On what basis would the main page be able to say the reverse?

I have no opinion about the status of the page overall, but if you want to engage in an overhaul, I'd be happy to supply references where you would like them. I have most of the undergrad texts here.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know what you mean by main page. Can you clarify that? You're not talking about the WP:Main Page, are you? If so, how is this article relevant to the Main Page?

I have very strong opinions about the overhaul of this article, but as much as I've said it needs to be done, I'm as adamant that it not be done by me. It's not a job for a single person to do. I wrote the Lesbian article and that is too much a responsibility for a single editor. First, it invalidates the collaborative aspect of this site, and secondly, information in the article is interpreted by one person only. No single person should be responsible for deciding what goes into an article like this. It needs lots of people to be informed and make intelligent decisions.

I've not read your article, obviously, although it might help not to make the point of your post a vague question. But the construction of an article this controversial, with this many hits, should be based on level, well-balanced reviews of literature obtained from the best reliable sources. While your article has been published by a reliable source, it is a recent article. I did a very basic review of psych information about lesbians and bisexual women when I wrote the Lesbian article. A review of psych info about homosexuality in general would be culled from just a massive amount of published information. How would your article factor into a section that addressed how psychiatry has dealt with homosexuality since the end of the 19th century? Of course, because it's in a peer-reviewed academic journal, there's nothing stopping you from summarizing your paper and inserting it in the article now. It wouldn't help the article any, but it's so disorganized and nearly impossible to read and comprehend now that it wouldn't make much of a difference. --Moni3 (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

By "Mainpage", I meant Homosexuality, as opposed to talk:Homosexuality. I apologize if I misspoke.

Well, if you haven't ready my article, and don't intend to write on Homosexuality, then there isn't much else to discuss here.

— James Cantor (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:COS refers to cases where your own publication happens to be the best source for some statement made in an article (which wasn't introduced merely for the sake of citing the publication in question): The publication, in such cases, happens to be the best solution to a problem in an article (namely, the lack of an appropriate source for some statement). This is quite different from asking on the Talk Page if there's anywhere where you can fit your article in. That's a case of using a Wikipedia article as the solution to your problem: a need to promote your own work. And you shouldn't do it. garik (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that's one way to stave off improving the article. Not communicating. --Moni3 (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the article. The title of this section is grossly misleading. The article confirms that homosexuality is NOT a paraphylia. Which we knew already. So, if there is somewhere a mention of this in the article already, it can be added as a source. Otherwise, I think it is not relevant to this article because homosexuality was already in the 70ies purged from the DSM because it was not seen anymore as a disorder. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Good faith update. It wasn't a "study" in the sense that I did not collect data as part of it; Kim correctly refers to as as an article, however. I therefore changed the section header to be the complete title, which is rather neutral. I'm sure other reasonable section headers can be had, nonetheless.

If the only factoid of interest is the final conclusion, no problem; if others find the information that led to that conclusion to be of interest (and published by others), no problem either.

— James Cantor (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

James is following both the letter and spirit of our COI guideline by making a suggestion on the talk page of this article. As long as he doesn't insist on its inclusion in the article there shouldn't be any controversy in doing so. -- Atama頭 02:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Given marionthelibrarion's previous, blatant violations of COI, it makes sense that his actions be watched carefully. Promoting his own article on multiple talk pages, using the login James Cantor, is within Wikipedia policy although not the best of practices. The publication itself would carry more weight if the author were not also on the journal's editorial board.

As for the contents, the article has a critical failing: It does not address diversity within the paraphilias. It assumes homosexuality is not a paraphilia, groups all other paraphilias together, and then contrasts the two, perhaps selectively. This is analogous to arguing that 'l' is not a letter because it is taller than 'e', or alternatively arguing that 'l' is a letter because it is the same height as 'k'. Both arguments are false, because they neglect the differences among the other letters. Had the paper gathered unbiased data for many separate paraphilias (and homosexuality), and showed how they clustered, it might have been useful. BitterGrey (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As a peer-reviewed, secondary source published in a scholarly journal by a noted expert, there's no issue with integrating and citing it, though I wouldn't argue for rewriting the entire page based on it. I've downloaded a copy, I'll read and integrate it so there is no question that James Cantor's COI is somehow tainting anything. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"I'll read and integrate it" WLU, neutral editors read articles first, and only decide whether or not to integrate them after reading. Your determination to cite an article you have not yet read shows a clear conflict of interest.

This might be a pro-CAMH conflict. CAMH has other Wikipedians on their payroll who have concealed their conflict of interest, including James Cantor. He was "MariontheLibrarion" until his COI was discovered.

On the other hand, WLU's conflict might be due to his need to get revenge against me for some reason. He has made over 100 edits[2] since this discussion started, and yet only got involved immediately after I commented. Unlike WLU, I've been involved with discussions here before. (Although it has been a while: I've been busy defending other pages from WLU, including his determination to cite Cantor and his colleagues, irrespective of whether they should be cited or not.) BitterGrey (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WLU has decided add a paragraph on James Cantor[3] and cite his article in multiple locations[4][5], instead of engaging in discussion.BitterGrey (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've integrated the article at paraphilia like I would any equally applicable reliable, secondary source. I actually don't see a place to integrate it in this page, it's much more applicable over there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, it is a primary source because it actively tries to answer a question. A review would have been limited to what other literature would discuss about this. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the question as moot here, I don't see applicability on this page. It's more for paraphilia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

James Cantor himself selected this as the main discussion location[6]. (Unless WLU is going to accuse me of mind-controlling Cantor again - at least this time, it wouldn't have involved a time machine as well.) I think the article would be equally primary (plus all the flaws I noted in my first post, before which WLU seemed not to care at all) with respect to both locations. The only reasons to relocate that I can see are 1) since the discussion was here, the consensus to not include the article was expressed here, not there 2) paraphilia is a less active article, so a single 'promoter' could better hope to use combative bullying tactics there, avoiding the need to actually discuss the article. BitterGrey (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

James will always try to get his next article in as many wikipedia articles as he can get. Just read those articles and make decisions accordingly. Really, it's not worth edit warring or angry posts. I think his behavior here will be an excellent case-study about Conflict Of Interest and academic POV pushing. The longer he goes on, the further he will fall eventually. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm, Cantor actually kept his hands clean through this, and so far has ended up with a citation that he otherwise might never have gotten. The only risk inherent in good-Wikipedian/bad-Wikipedian games like what played out here are if WLU gets tied to Cantor in some documentable way, or if all those WLU has bullied rise up and revert WLU's broad promotion of Cantor. WLU probably won't repeat the mistake that forced Cantor to be open about his COI, and any revolution will have to overcome the mob that WLU is tied to. As a result, these outcomes are unlikely. Perhaps it is Wikipedia that will fall eventually. BitterGrey (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

An update: This discussion was one of three started by James Cantor. The second was at paraphilia regarding the same journal article, and the third at COI/N regarding the first two. To try to answer a question at the COI/N discussion, I started a list of where Cantor was being named and cited using Google, and wikiblame to find who did it. My intent was to gather history and see if there were any patterns. For example, does WLU do this often?

DGG, who has stated a lack of neutrality and that he is "too involved"[7], requested the speedy deletion of that list of diffs. The discussion of that deletion (which for some reason did not occur before the deletion) is here. DGG has yet to share why he considers those diffs so dangerous. BitterGrey (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, if we are to decide what should be put in this article and what not, based upon, whether or not it shows 'homosexuality' in a bad light, then it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia and doing justice to being open and fair. This selective inclusion of published information does not bode well for the topic. Remember, a lot of information which is false and misleading is put on this page, only because it is published, and advances the interests of the western (LGBT) lobby.(Masculinity (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC))

Homosexuality and choice.

In the current petty political debates about homosexuality, it is easy to get lost in arguments about whether homosexuality is a 'choice' or not. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that 'choice' is not an objective scientific concept, and therefore no scientific study can ever definitely prove anything about it.

In the current revision, this sentence appears: "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors."

'Not' is a very strong word. It is definitely not applicable to something as vaguely defined as 'choice' or 'free will'. Two references are given, however in none of these references does anything supporting that sentence appear. Rather, it is mentioned that some homosexuals do not perceive their orientation to be their choice. Choice is a subjective issue, not an objective one. I suggest the sentence be altered to this:

"Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors."

It would be great if people grew up and realized that discrimination against homosexuality is wrong even if it has nothing to do with biology and is entirely a personal choice. However, it is also dishonest to say that science can tell us what goes on in someone's mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.180.208 (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree that it would be great if discrimination was more accountable to reason. It would also be great if the orientation and the act were lingually more different: While anyone might choose to engage in homosexual activities irrespective of their orientation, history and science seem quite clear that people cannot chose their orientation. BitterGrey (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, but you missed the point entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.180.208 (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It has been a couple days, and no one has spoken against your suggestion, 122.58.180.208. Given the article audience, I'd be leaning toward having "not a choice" in the lead paragraph, but that is just me. Would you like to go ahead and make the change? BitterGrey (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I take the point, but I don't think the proposal is a positive change, and I think the sources do support the current wording. From the apa: "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." From the pubmed paper: "the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one's sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual." That last statement is itself sourced to "Homosexuality" and "Theoretical perspectives accounting for adolescent homosexuality." Those appear to be fairly strong and direct statements. Do we have any sources indicating that homosexuality is not a choice, or that it is scientifically untestable?   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Mann jess, which is why I put those sources beside that line when the matter of tweaking that paragraph was being worked out in the #Religion POV in intro (RFC) discussion. I was at first going to reply to the IP, but I didn't because I didn't want to get into a debate...which I worried would happen. Debates on Wikipedia and in online forums stress me out. When I have the willpower to avoid them, I often do. I only debate when sufficiently motivated. Flyer22 (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to see this being discussed. I'll retract my suggestion to make the change, and chide (as good-naturedly as possible) the above editors for not sharing their thoughts sooner. BitterGrey (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally get the point, and I don't think it is enough that there are papers available that support this view -- Remember, there are several other papers that say things that the LGBT doesn't like and doesn't allow to be put in this article. Unfortunately, there is a strong LGBT lobby in the western scholarly world, that doles-out half-baked studies to forward the 'gay' agenda, without really mindful of being honest to the topic -- whether it be the question of choice or that of 'homosexuality' being genetic or anything else. Unfortunately, the owners of

Wikipedia have chosen to give the control of issues related to what is known in the west as 'sexuality' to the LGBT, who use the mob rule to use this page as a propaganda/ activist space, and aggressively censor any information (even supported) that goes against its agenda. It is very unfair, because, Wikipedia is a space for information, and its against the spirit of general participation and against the spirit of knowledge, to give such an important topic to a western lobbying group, to deal with, as they please.

If at all this topic of choice should be brought up:

(a) introduction is not the place to do it.

(b) All the sides to the issue should be mentioned.

(c) The customs/issues/concepts of the non-western people, and others, even in the west, who don't quite experience same-gender sexuality in the same way as the LGBT, should also be given a space -- and it should not be assumed that the issue of choice equally applies to the non-west.(Masculinity (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC))

"homosexuality" in animals?

Im not denying the content or accuracy of this, the research, or anything but is there any other term for it? I mean, "Homo" generally refers to humanity and its related species right? It seems a bit silly to have animals classified as such. But if I'm missing something obvious, which may be the case, then you should probably just disregard this question. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

From Homosexuality#Etymology, the "homo" in homosexuality means same (derived from Greek homos), not man (derived from Latin homo) --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 08:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality in animals sounds weird. To talk of a separate 'category' or 'community' of animals that have sexual attraction for others of the "same-sex" is really assuming too much -- when we do not have much knowledge about the kind of gender system that different animal species practise, and the kind of desires that they have, and whether these desires can be organised in the same way as in the western world, when animals do not have religious/ sexual mores and injunctions upon sexual issues, like those that exist in the west. But then who can bell the powerful cat (LGBT). Who can point out the obvious discrepancies to a community that has been given the sole ownership of the human trait of, what they call, desiring someone of the same-sex.(Masculinity (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC))

Heavy and unhealthy Western bias in the article

This article is heavily biased in terms of modern western social concepts and issues, but presents itself as though these issues/concepts were universally applicable -- leading to severe misrepresentation of facts. This problem is especially glaring in the introduction section, where it dwells upon several western issues as though they were universal. In this, the article exhibits a strong westernised LGBT POV on the topic of sexual/romantic intimacy between men, without mentioning the term "western" even once in the introduction.

Here are a list of some such issues:

1. The introduction takes no notice of the fact that the concept of a separate group of people exhibiting sexuality for same-gender, as well as, of sexual feelings for same-sex being essentially different from sexual feelings for 'different-sex,' is both of recent and western origin.

2. This article assumes that gender and sexual orientation/ identities are universally defined in the same manner, across the world and history, as it is through the western concept of 'sexual orientation'. That you can talk of a separate 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual' orientation or individual in any society or point of time in history, just like you do in modern west. Examples of discrepancies are:

(a) How would you define sexual orientation in terms of just two genders (man and woman) in societies that have a strong tradition of 'third gender,' without interfering and damaging the original knowledge, customs and practices? When the western 'gay' identity is imposed upon these societies, it is widely seen as a 'feminine male'/'non-man'/third gender identity fit only for the feminine oriented males.

(b) How and why would you isolate a 'homosexual' orientation/ individual in societies, where either formally or secretively (within men's spaces) sexual attraction between men is seen as a universal male phenomenon -- and hence enjoys that much social respect/ space. What would be the social consequences of such isolation on men and on men's desire for men? Already, enforcing the concept of 'gay' in these societies is forcing men to forgo intimacy between men, because no one wants to be seen as 'third gender' or 'gay.' E.g. men in India are already being forced by certain vested interests not to hold hands (just as the concept of 'homosexuality' has done in the west), as this would make them liable to be called 'gay.'

(c) How would you define 'homo' and 'hetero' in societies where the concepts of what is 'same-sex' and what is 'opposite-sex' is different from the western/Christian world. Eg. in the non-west, 'third gender' males (feminine gendered males) are not seen as 'men.' Any relationship between a man (masculine gendered male that follows the male sexual role of penetrating) and a third gender male (feminine gendered male that follows the third gender sexual role of receiving anal sex) is seen as between two different-genders, not the same-genders. 'Gender identity' and not just 'sex identity' is important in the non-western world.

3. While the introduction does not even cursorily want to mention that 'homosexuality' is a modern, western concept, or that this article is primarily about the western(ized) societies, it nevertheless goes on to dwell upon issues that are not possible in the non-west, right in the introduction, as though, they too are universally applicable.

E.g. whether individuals have any control over sexual attraction for the same-sex, or whether or not it is changeable, is of no consequence in the non-western/ non-Christian societies -- as acceptance of sexual relations between same-gender is not dependant upon whether or not it is spontaneous. People are expected to either stay off these relations in the name of social order/ morality, or to carry them on without acknowledging them. It's acknowledgement that is seen as problematic for the social order, not indulgence as such.

Even whether or not it is natural has of little consequence in the non-western world. I remember once this issue was brought up in a women's organization in India (Jagori), where, when it was pointed out that it is natural (and hence should be acceptable) because it is found in animals too, the overwhelming response was, "We know that already, but, should we become like animals and do what they're doing?" On the other hand, there is acceptability for sex between third gender males and 'men' without it needing to be more natural than sex between men.

If this article is going to be so heavily and unapologetically biased in favour of western LGBT POV, then it should be incumbent upon Wikipedia to mention it, right in the introduction, and change the tone of the article. Right now it looks more like a space for western LGBT activism. (Masculinity (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC))

Does that mean the article about slavery is anti-slavery propaganda? Should we, for a more "balanced" POV, include a section that praises the benefits of slavery?--DVD-junkie | talk | 14:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

<<Does that mean the article about slavery is anti-slavery propaganda?>> If it contains what the west considers 'slavery' -- e.g. if the west pronounces that children helping in their own household chores, is slavery and then go on to define children in India, Africa, etc. as victims of slavery, because they do housechores at home ... then ... to include this in Wikipedia as 'undisputed' definition of slavery, right in the introduction, with the vested interests vehemently censoring any mention of the incongruity between western and non-western viewpoints as well as differences within the west on the issue -- even when pointed out by reliable sources --- then it is certainly mispropaganda.

<<Should we, for a more "balanced" POV, include a section that praises the benefits of slavery?>> If there is ground, (with sources) available to praise the benefit of slavery, then yes, you should. You are not here to judge what is right and what is wrong, but to include what exists, with valid sources, and in a balanced manner, which the LGBT lobby on Wikipedia has failed to do.(Masculinity (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

I notice there's not a single reference to any reliable source in the essay above. --Nigelj (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that sources are required on the talk page.(Masculinity (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

You guys might also want to watch this user at other sexual orientation/activity articles, like Human male sexuality. Banking honesty (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We've gone through all of this several years ago, when I had offered to include the non-western pov with innumerable reliable published sources, but there was such heavy politicking by the LGBT, that I finally left frustrated, only to come back several months later to know that others had taken my work in the face of the strong LGBT lobby, and since, the LGBT won't let touch the article on 'homosexuality' it had been moved to a section called "non-western concepts of male gender and sexuality" an article that was very well supported by sources. Someone later merged it with the article on human male sexuality, and in the recent years the it is again being hijacked by the strong LGBT lobby, simply because of their large numbers.

Banking honesty for example has not even cared to ask for references, and went on to delete stuff that doesn't suit LGBT pov. I added back one statement with sources, which were struck down without even a call for discussion. Such is the conceitedness of the LGBT lobby.

Why isn't someone addressing the issues that I've raised here. What about the non-western pov. Why this cultural aggression?(Masculinity (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

I remember you, Masculinity. I recall that several discussions over half a dozen talk pages took place where you were very strongly pushing for information to be added to articles about how men can be homosexual (especially, if I recall correctly, in India) and still be masculine, or some such. I remember walls of text that were nearly impossible to read that you included to explain your views. I remember discussions with you where it was very difficult for you to explain what it was you were trying to insert. I got the impression that you were having the same difficulties understanding the concepts yourself or expressing them concisely in English.

So, to reiterate, articles are constructed based on the volume of research that exists about the topic. But to make this a more complex issue, this article has NOT been constructed this way. This article is a result of a thousand editors adding a sentence here and there at a time. It has no cohesion and as an article, it is substandard. It needs to be rewritten, which I come by every so often to say. So we have that in common at least.

Homosexuality is a very broad topic and thousands of books and journal articles have been written about it. To construct this article, the best way to go about it would be to do a review of the most authoritative literature about the subject. This means information that treats generalities instead of specifics. Now, the article reads as if hundreds of editors have had a hand in inserting their favorite pet theories and views. This is the kind of stuff this article needs to get rid of. Wikipedia itself is against adding pet theories. If there's an LGBT lobby at Wikipedia, it's impotent. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my English is not so bad at all. The problem as I see it, was that people here were so used to see things in a certain way, that they felt they had no obligation to look at anything else, than what the LGBT theory dictates. I distinctly remember LGBT driven politics. A lot of stuff that I added was supported by well researched papers, and members of LGBT would just come and delete it because theydidn't like it. They were just so huge in numbers, and that is what counts at Wikipedia, especially, if you're new and don't know your way around -- besides, they were such zealots. Then I was taken to some sort of LGBT administrator, and chided off. Ultimately, I gave up. Only to come back months later and see that some editors (apparently not from LGBT), that knew their way through in Wikipedia and could also manuevre around LGBT politics, had not only understood what I was talking about clearly, but they infact, beautifually moulded all that into Wikipedian language (something that I lacked at that time) and made a beautiful article out of it called "non-western concepts of male gender and sexuality." Actually, that information belonged in this article on homosexuality -- but those people too understood the practicality of avoiding the LGBT politics and keep off the article on 'homosexuality' that the LGBT brigate thinks they own. Unfortunately, LGBT activism has finally got to that article as well. I mean its not for nothing that you don't see much on Wikipedia about all the opposition from within the west from scholarly work -- that maintains that 'homosexuality' is just a social construct, not a biological or universal one. Like in the western society, here on Wikpedia too, a strong though unorganised zeal keeps every sane voice that goes against some of the cherished ideals and concepts of the LGBT movement well censored on one pretext or the other.(Masculinity (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

I remember Masculinity too, and have had to revert some of his edits as recently as last year because they were WP:Original research or some other type of WP:Synthesis. And, actually, Moni, Masculinity's objections are more so about there being a such thing as homosexuality. That men being sexually attracted to and/or having sex with men, for example, doesn't make the men homosexual or bisexual. Masculinity objects to all of the way the West views sexual attraction/sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's funny, if you look at the gender and sexuality related articles on Wikipedia, they're flooded with unsubstantiated LGBT propaganda, and no one cares if they're Original research. I did feel the full heat of the LGBT brigade as they expected the stuff that I added to be ad verbatim, as in the published sources, even as they did not feel the same rule to apply to them. I am not at all objecting to removing anything of mine that is unsubstantiated. I am talking about removing stuff that are not only such common knowledge in the outside world, but are also very well substantiated by reliable, publised documents -- sometimes, by such known western experts as Michel Foucalt and others. Even phrases that were taken ad verbatim from published sources were eventually taken off -- on one pretext or the other, and when you're the lone non-western individual facing the sea of LGBT zealots, there is not much you can do.(Masculinity (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)).

This is way off topic, guys. Take it to user space. Proposals for this article should be specific, succinct, and backed up with links to sources. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the LGBT lobby doesn't stop from removing even specific, succinct and backed up with links texts, when they don't agree with the LGBT propaganda. And that is a huge issue.(Masculinity (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC))

I'm aware that people here don't like the changes I want to put in, however, I expect an answer, because I'm seriously considering to take it up. I'll wait for a couple more days for a discussion on this, and then put forward a definite proposal for changes.(Masculinity (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC))

Let's cut to the chase. Masculinity, exactly what changes do you want to make, and what sources do you plan to use? HiLo48 (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Masculinity, if editors here are rejecting proper sources due to a personal bias, then that is indeed an issue, but this is not the proper venue. WP:RSN, WP:RFC or WP:RFC/U would be appropriate, depending on the exact circumstances. With that said, if you go there and can't show you've even attempted proposing sources here first, it'll be a waste of everyone's time. Wikipedia is not the place to wage a war on "the LGBT lobby". I'll reiterate: there is nothing to discuss without a proposal; either make the definite proposal you mentioned, or this conversation can't continue.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Scientific Studies Related to Homosexuality

Wikipedia describes homoseuality as not being a choice. In support of this statement. I thought I would suggest some studies that have been done that suggest that. Scientific research has provided multiple studies, on a large spectrum that provide evidence of homosexuality having a biological or inherited origin. First, there is a noted percentage of homosexuality in twins when one is gay. Arguably, if identical twins share the same DNA, then they both should be gay. Scientist however argue this from the stand point of methylation. Humans inherit two copies of every gene, one from each parent. Methylation "turns off certain sections of genetic code (Abrams)" Methylation can have generational changes and is even influenced by environment.

Second, many studies have argued that there is a higher incidence of left-handedness in homosexuals which also seems to be consistent with the rotation of their hair whorl. There appears to be a higher incidence of having a counter-clockwise hair whorl (vs a clockwise hair whorl) in homosexual man, occurring approximately 30 percent of the time in homosexuals, versus roughly 8% in heterosexuals (France). Furthermore, there have been multiple studies that suggest that the second born son is more likely to be gay than the first born son, the third 33 percent more likely than the second, etcetera (France).

Other studies of the brain via MRI and animal dissection, show a differences in the brain between heterosexual and homosexual people. According to Levay, who studied a section of the hypothalamus known as INAH3, gay men had a similar structure to straight women. Heterosexual men had a structure about twice the size. To continue, in heterosexual people the right and left hemisphere of the brain is symmetrical. In homosexual people the left hemisphere is larger (Owens).

Abrams, Michael. "The Real Story on Gay Genes." Discover Magazine. 5 June 2007. Web. 1 April 2012. France, David. "The Science of Gaydar." New York Magazine. 25 June 2007. Web. 1 April 2012. Owens, James. "Gay Men, Straight Women Have Similar Brains." National Geographic News. 16 June 2008. Web 1 April 2012. 75.70.96.26 (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Katherine 23 April 2012

Homosexuality has become more widespread in today's society, causing people to ponder if this is a result of nature or nurture. Lack of funding has put a halt on research done on a homosexual gene, yet some studies have suggested there may be a gene responsible for the alter in sexual orientation. Homosexual tendencies in animals have been observed in nature for many years, suggesting that there may be natural causes for homosexuality. On the other hand, it is quite possible that nature plays a valuable role in defining someones sexual orientation. Many homosexuals have had a history of sexual abuse as a child. When someone experiences this as a child, he or she may perceive sex with someone of the same sex as being a form of showing loving affection and later this misconception may turn to homosexual desires in adolescent years. Whatever the cause may be, it is highly unlikely that someone would wake up one morning and decide to be a homosexual. It is far more probable that an individuals genetic make-up and life experiences have contributed to the trait of homosexuality. Raqueles (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Raquele Shephard

Refs:Abrams, Michael. "Born Gay?." Discover 28.6: 58-83. Academic Search Premier. Jun 2007. Web. Apr. 2012.

Cohen, Richard. Coming out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality. Winchester: Oakhill Press, 2006. Print

I'm not quite sure what changes you're trying to suggest, but neither of those can be considered credible sources. The points you're bringing up are also easily dismissed by more vetted research 84.208.181.207 (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Asexuality as a main sexual orientation in the lead

Hi, all. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Asexuality as a main sexual orientation about the validity of User:Pass a Method adding that asexuality is "a main category of sexual orientation" to the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. Obviously, comments on the matter are needed. Flyer22 (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

There has been an ongoing edit war since May 16th. Differing viewpoints about content correctiness is not an excuse to edit war, per policy in WP:WAR. Note 3RR does not imply a right to game the system by keeping reverts within the 3 reverts/day bright line. Continued edit warring will result in admin intervention, which may include article locking and/or editor blocking. Please keep the content disagreement on the talk page until there is consensus. It's not fair to our readers to wind up in the middle of a content fight. Again, it's not about being right, it's about inapproriate behavior. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Why are the sources used unreliable? Crzyclarks (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll just say why I don't think the sources used are unreliable... I used FRC as a source because they have conveniently placed a couple of nice graphs to campare; they are from good sources. I don't see why The Sexual Organization of the City is unreliable. The 1985 study was only 25 years ago and it concurs with the more recent sources I put. Crzyclarks (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Your addition was pure POV blither supported by totally unreliable sources. There's really nothing to discuss. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the burden is on YOU to convince us that your addition has merit and your sources are not woprthless, and get consensus for your proposed change, not the other way around. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at the sources. I did say why they're reliable. FRC is the source because they've got sources of information from the US Census Bureau and Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census. Comparing the two is the information that is added, not the contentious material in the rest of the article/site. The Sexual Organization of the City uses a scientific approach and received good reviews; this seems like a good example: http://www.glreview.com/issues/11.6/11.6_lo.php For Michael Pollak, I copied the information, thinking that the description of how he came to those conclusions was accurate. I've had a sample look at the book and it shouldn't be included. Unless the statement below is for social scientists to answer questions pertaining only to homosexuality (rather than everybody/thing), then it should be removed. This statement seems unnecessary and untrue/exaggerated: Further, knowledge of the size of the "gay and lesbian population holds promise for helping social scientists understand a wide array of important questions—questions about the general nature of labor market choices, accumulation of human capital, specialization within households, discrimination, and decisions about geographic location."<ref name=black /> Crzyclarks (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss, site of the conservative Christian group Family Research Council is not WP:RS and can't be used as a source in this context. As for the cherry picked “studies” of Michael Pollak and Edward Laumann, you found them here (text supported by footnotes 5 and 7). You haven't even bothered to change the text, instead, you literally copied it (which is a copyright violation). But even if we ignore obvious copyright iviolation, those cherry picked facts can't stay in the article (see WP:NPOV and WP: FRINGE)--В и к и T 09:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, it depends what you mean by source... The actual sources are really the 'US Census Bureau' and 'Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census'. The FRC just conveniently placed them there so I added that page as a source. Not sure how I cherry picked them. In the article right now it says: "Negative stereotypes characterize LGB people as less romantically stable, more promiscuous and more likely to abuse children, but there is no scientific basis to such assertions." Lesbians may be less promiscuous and more romantically stable than straight couples, but gay men, simply due to their gender of being male, will on average have more sexual partners and more short term relationships than straight couples. Monogamy is also less common among gays. I thought this was common knowledge. Obviously there is no reason why gays cannot form stable, committed, and monogamous relationships, but they are less likely to do so. I copied the information from an edit on Wikipedia. It was removed due to it synthesising. As no other reason was given, I (wrongly) assumed that was the only reason and decided to add it here, where it wouldn't be synthesising. I only think Michael Pollak's source shouldn't be added. Crzyclarks (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The proposed use is still synthesizing an argument, since the sources in question don't address gay stereotyping. For an article to set to prove that a stereotype is "correct" is a rather dubious goal, and any reliable sources cited would appropriately be held to a high standard and need to be precisely on point.

I am not aware if any other articles where we describe a stereotype ("group x is lazy/less intelligent/violent/cheap/promiscuous" etc.) and then launch into an attempt to use studies to prove that blanket generalization to be correct. The point of the section as currently written isn't that the stereotype are never true of individuals, but that they are not necessarily or inherently true of individuals. That point is well supported by the available RSs.--Trystan (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't about gay stereotyping. The section isn't even on gay stereotyping. I don't think anybody would say that every single gay is more promiscuous than any heterosexual possible, or at least not enough to even warrant mentioning. The way it currently looks, is that there is no difference in relationship conduct between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The way I had written it, was basically: 'on average, gays are more promiscuous and have shorter relationships. But they are equally able to enter into stable, committed relationships as heterosexuals.' The current wording says "Negative stereotypes characterize LGB people..." It doesn't say 'all' LGB people. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with the new source? Crzyclarks (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Chiefly, that it says nothing about Heterosexism and Homophobia, and so is not appropriate for a section on that topic.--Trystan (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Then why does the section say that there is no scientific evidence that gays/lesbians have different numbers of sexual partners and they are no different to heterosexuals relationship wise? I don't want a response saying because it is a false stereotype, as it isn't. Crzyclarks (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. A stereotype is a "a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment."[8] By that definition, there is no such thing as a true stereotype. What the section says is that the oversimplified, uncritical prejudices people hold about LGB people are not scientifically supported, which is what the sources we have on the subject say. To use other sources to try and synthesize an argument that these oversimplified prejudices are actually correct is inherently not WP:NPOV.--Trystan (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You'd need to say that the stereotype is for all LGB people. Right now it's just for LGB people in general or on average, and that this belief is not scientifically supported, which isn't true. Crzyclarks (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I change it to this: Negative stereotypes characterize all LGB people as less romantically stable, more promiscuous and more likely to abuse children. While there is no scientific basis to child abuse, on average, homosexual couples are more likely to have more sexual partners and stay together for a shorter time than heterosexual couples. In his The Sexual Organization of the City, sociologist Edward Laumann from the University of Chicago wrote that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months". However, gay men and lesbians are able form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects. Crzyclarks (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverting my last edit was a bit harsh. If you think the way I worded the sentence was grouping child abuse with relationships then you could have edited it to change that. Crzyclarks (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody object to wording it as this? Negative stereotypes characterize all LGB people as less romantically stable, more promiscuous and more likely to abuse children. On average, homosexual couples are more likely to have more sexual partners and stay together for a shorter time than heterosexual couples. In his The Sexual Organization of the City, sociologist Edward Laumann from the University of Chicago wrote that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months". However this does not encompass all LGB people. Gay men and lesbians are able form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects. Sexual orientation does not affect the likelihood that people will abuse children. Claims that there is scientific evidence to support an association between being gay and being a pedophile are based on misuses of those terms and misrepresentation of the actual evidence. Crzyclarks (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That version does not address the fundamental WP:OR problem of using sources that don't address Heterosexism and Homophobia to advance a new argument on that topic.--Trystan (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the information is addressing the stereotype that is mentioned in the section. Right now it looks like LGB people are exactly like straight people when it comes to sexual partners and length of relationships, which isn't true. What I want to change it to is that the stereotype of ALL gay people having more sexual partners and shorter relationships is not true, but they will on average have more partners and shorter relationships. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Mental health

The current information says that the increased mental illness among homosexual people is only due to society and how they are treated. There are other possibilities [9]. The last point Richard Dawkins makes is that the gay gene could come with other genes. I think the introduction and mental health sections should reflect that the gay gene could be connected to mental illness genes. I'm not saying to use the YouTube link as a source, but if some people would like to find some sources and expand those sections a bit more, that'd be good. Crzyclarks (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Child abuse and homosexual couples

In line with the editing guideline WP:Be bold, I reverted this edit by Crzyclarks (talk · contribs) which conflated the length of homosexual couple relationships and child abuse by stating:

While there is no scientific basis to child abuse, on average, homosexual couples are more likely to have more sexual partners and stay together for a shorter time than heterosexual couples.

Based on the sources http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=58&issue=1&page=85 and a footnote containing "[Current Population Reports: U.S. Census Bureau (2002)] [2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census]".

Crzyclarks responded with a partial revert and the edit comment "Stop synthesising these conclusions! Provide a valid reason for it on the discussion page before reverting."

I see nothing in the suggested sources that mentions child abuse in any form. The claim appears to be without substance and amounts to original research by Crzyclarks, and as I read it, appears to be an unsourced defamatory allegation that homosexual couples are more likely to abuse children than other couples. Please take this as my valid reason for reverting. --Fæ (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That was to do with the introduction of prevalence of homosexuality and same-sex contact. You undid the edit you mentioned just then, but also my other one. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting there are reliable sources to demonstrate that homosexual couples are more likely to abuse children than heterosexual couples? If so, please link to the sources here. As for unpicking your edits, there is no obligation for other editors to do that when being bold and removing unsourced and apparently defamatory material. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. I made 2 separate edits. One was in the introduction, nothing to do with the child abuse thing. You undid that one, maybe thinking it was part of my other, larger edit. My larger edit did not comment on child sexual abuse, but on the differences in relationships between gay and straight people. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, your edit here appears to make a clear implication that there is a "non-scientific" correlation between child abuse and the average time of homosexual couple relationships compared to heterosexual relationships. This appears to be nobody else's addition to the article apart from yours. Was that a mistake? --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I was addressing the stereotypes mentioned, that child abuse isn't true, but the other two are, to the extent that on average they've more sexual partners and shorter relationships, but that it isn't universal for all gays. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, please take care with the way you are presenting this material, the statement as it was, appeared to be defamatory and a misuse of citations to make it appear that the claims might be supportable. Please take care to point out where you are relying on sources with a strong geographic bias, one inconclusive study in one location does not generalize to a justifiable generic statement about homosexual relationships. Any controversial or critical statement about a frequently stereotyped group would need careful verification with multiple independent quality sources. --Fæ (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean it looked like I was saying child abuse is true and that the citations used didn't support that? If it's about the relationship sources, they are from two geographical locations, and I don't think the third one is even specific to an area. I can go out and find some more sources, but it's not very controversial. Being male means gays will have more partners and shorter relationships by default really. I suppose lesbians are a little more complicated. But the sources take into account both genders. I have posted how I would like to word it a couple of topics up. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate what Fæ said, this is directly from the study that you cite: "Conclusion: The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders." Seeing as it mentions nothing about the length of relationships, I do not see how that could be used to support your claim. Additionally, the source states the following just below it: "Although many studies have assessed the mental health status of homosexual men and women, the results are still inconclusive," which would require noting of if used in the article. Your other source (Edward Laumann) is one book, so allowing that to overshadow the many associations that support the opposite via multiple studies would be WP:UNDUE. Additionally, that book covers many topics, so I would not deem it reliable to use it as the sole source supporting a one-sentence stereotype/prejudice. Not to mention that it is compiled using one "1995 survey of four Chicago neighborhoods" (via the column on the left here). As Fæ stated, that would be a major geographical bias (not to mention old reference) considering that you changed "Negative stereotypes characterize LGB people…" to "Negative stereotypes characterize all LGB people…" and are not specifying that the study took place solely in Chicago.

I see your revised writing here, but you still do not have the sources required to state that homosexual relationships do not last as long as heterosexual relationships because you are trying to prove a stereotype of all homosexual people based on one study done in Chicago. You said, "What I want to change it to is that the stereotype of ALL gay people having more sexual partners and shorter relationships is not true, but they will on average have more partners and shorter relationships", which you are not proving with your one source. Also, I dislike the inclusion of the mention of child abuse when it is not being addressed further because it appears as if that is being justified as well.

Your claim "Being male means gays will have more partners and shorter relationships by default really" is completely original research, and you are proven incorrect in a number of studies. (Therefore, since you seem to be supporting your claim by yourself, this must be even less "controversial".) The section "Relationships" on the Homosexuality article cites this source, which—if you would look on the first page—is compiled by what I would think to be a number of relatively reliable associations. The text and studies cited from page 14 on in section III refute your claim. Additionally, the text and sources in the section LGBT stereotypes#Sex and relationships disprove what you are attempting to add to this article. – Jonadin93 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The mental health source contains information on the relationships of the people interviewed. The proportion of homosexuals in long term relationships was smaller than heterosexuals. I don't see why the study occurring in Chicago has anything to do with me changing the wording to: Negative stereotypes characterize all LGB people. The 'all' part has nothing to do with Chicago. It's not just based on one study in Chicago. There's also the sources comparing the U.S Census Bureau to the Gay/Lesbian Online Census. The mental health source was done in Amsterdam. I'm not even touching the child abuse stuff, so I don't know why everybody keeps going on about that. The court source you sent me to doesn't disprove me or the other sources at all. Your interpretation of what it says is wrong. The edit I want to make, sticks to what your source says. It also adds however, that on average they have more sexual partners and long-term relationships are less common. The source you sent me to doesn't dispute that. In regard to original research, it's more like common sense (which is also backed up). Crzyclarks (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that I refuted these accusations effectively. Why does what I added deserve removal? Crzyclarks (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

According to policy, consensus is decision-making that "involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." And also, "The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible." None of the editors in this discussion have expressed content with your proposed changes, so I do not see how you are under such an impression. I did not respond further because I believe that I have adequately expressed my reasons for objecting your proposed changes, and carrying this further would only lead to a circular argument which could take a turn for the uncivil. I do not believe that consensus is for your addition as it is currently being proposed, seeing as a different editor recently reverted this attempt by you to add the material again. – Jonadin93 (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Your reasons haven't been valid though. There isn't geographical bias. Amsterdam, United States, and a non-geographical census are the sources. The book source doesn't just represent Chicago, but major cities in general. The source you claimed disproved the sources I used, didn't do that at all. Other challenges have been because of misreading what I wrote and maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I would like to see how my current proposal isn't worthy of inclusion. Crzyclarks (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Crzyclarks, I think this way of discussing your proposal has reached a natural conclusion. If you disagree with the current consensus, or believe that consensus is unclear, then you could try one of the Dispute resolution process that exist. You may want to try putting forward a short and unambiguous proposal for change as part of a community wide Requests for comment which may encourage opinions from those not, so far, involved in this local discussion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Guardian poll

The following conversation is a continuation of the above section (#Child abuse and homosexual couples) regarding the reversal of this edit removing a poll taken by Guardian.

Thanks. I'm not sure how many more sources I need to add this information, but maybe in a week, maybe less, when I'm less busy I'll get some more. Regarding the recent edit I made for the polls in the section demographies, I feel that they're unreliable because they don't actually give an accurate picture of the demographies. Scientific studies place the numbers at half to less than half that the polls do. If anybody is not sure what the reason for that is, it's because polls are much more of an opt-in system, as opposed to the random selection of studies. Anybody agree/disagree on its removal? Crzyclarks (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You should probably ask for Wikiwind's opinion on that matter, as they were the one who restored the material that you removed. However, you are not citing the scientific studies which you claim refute the poll's data, so for now I agree with Wikiwind's revert. (If you are referring to the sentence before the one in question beginning with "A 1992 study reported" as the percentage is 6.1%—less than half of 13%—, then I disagree with the assumed inaccuracy of the poll as it took place 16 years after the study did.) Additionally, the sentence denotes that the information is coming from a poll so the reader is able to interpret its validity however they wish, but I believe it adds a recent context to the section in regards to the UK.

I have just edited the sentence (because it was basically copied from the source) and copyedited the section a bit. I think that the contrast between the two sentences is interesting, and should provide the reader with the idea that it is not possible to measure the number of homosexuals and bisexuals in a geographic region to an accuracy of 100%. Both sets of data were collected in different ways (one through an online poll run by a media outlet, the other through personal visits and telephone calls by the government) so they provide different outlooks. – Jonadin (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources in the introduction of this article are scientific studies and are in the 1% to 3% range for homosexuality. The Guardian poll says 6.1%. The problem of the online poll is that because it is a purely opt-in system, different people are more likely to bother voting than others. In this case gay people would vote more often than straight people. I don't want to hear OR crap btw, it's just common sense. They do provide different outlooks, but under a section of demographies, accurate information is required. I have a feeling that a lot of people will interpret polls as more accurate than studies. I think it should be removed, or at least a mention of why the poll is probably inaccurate, or why it is so different to the studies. Crzyclarks (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources in the introduction of this article are scientific studies and are in the 1% to 3% range for homosexuality. The Guardian poll says 6.1%.

No, the sentence says: ...while only 6% of Britons identify themselves as either homosexual or bisexual.

The problem of the online poll is that because it is a purely opt-in system, different people are more likely to bother voting than others.

Where you find that this is online poll? There is nothing about methodology in that article, but I found another article about the same poll with methodology section. Did you even read the article?--В и к и T 08:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you would pick on my sentence because I was out by 0.1%. I read the article on homosexuality, which didn't have methodology section. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Statistics in Lede

I'll just add that I did 4 reverts now, in less than 24 hours. Felt it was necessary as opposed to waiting several days for a response on the talk page, as the sources clearly state the numbers and those numbers are very important when viewing this article. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

By "stable version" I mean text that has stood for years, before someone unilaterally changed it 8 days ago.

• May 2011
• May 2010
• July 2009

Crzyclarks, I will not report you for edit warring, but if you keep doing that, probably, sooner or later you will be blocked. I strongly advise you to edit another topic, because you are clearly here to enter UNDUE right wing POV in the article.--В и к и T 19:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Those numbers aren't made up. The sources differentiate between homosexual and same-sex contact. There's no point in combining them. I would like some justification as to why. I'm more of a lefty. Liberal Democrats - UK, Labor party - Australia, Democrats - US. (From Australia, currently living in UK and I thought I may as well add the US one). Crzyclarks (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll just add that I'm opposed to bias more than anything. If this article had an anti-gay bias, I would be a lot more relentless in editing than now. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If 3 studies were over 3%, then put 'between 1 and ..... %'. Unless they were anomalous when compared to the majority of studies. Still no justification for combining the two separate results. Reply soon please. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

See ref 10 (Bogaert), which summarizes different studies. See also ref 17, and ref 14 (link).--В и к и T 20:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that sort of proves my point. The 22-32 year ago 10% is wrong and the recent 6% looks like an anomaly when compared to the recent studies. The 13% is the highest I've ever seen of same-sex contact and the website doesn't tell us how many people they polled, which gives it even less credibility. The AIDS Risk source does say something different. Nothing to do with what we're discussing if you included it because of the, perhaps high level of "some homosexual attraction" reported. That is entirely different to being homosexual, or had same-sex contact. You still haven't said why we should combine the two separate results. Things that make differentiating between homosexuals and people who have experienced same-sex contact important is that they are very different to each other. A heroine addict who makes money by prostituting himself to feed the habit isn't usually homosexual. Porn starts (especially female) who engage in same-sex contact for money may not consider themselves homosexual. There are many more examples, such as experimentation, being on so much drugs that you're looney, even being raped is same-sex contact. Sorry to get all heavy lol. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Pornstars do not represent a significant number of population, so your point is meaningless. Аlso, I think researchers are intelligent enough not to interview pornstars. But, I admit that it is very hard to summarize results of different studies, especially in one sentence. As a compromise, we can leave out percentages from the lead, and write that different studies reached different conclusions, and explain methodological difficulties.--В и к и T 10:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

My point isn't meaningless. Porn stars is only one of the examples I used, so disregarding everything else is stupid. Also, for the studies to be reliable, they have to be random, they can't pick and choose who they will accept. You haven't addressed the other things I said either. You still haven't said why we should synthesise two very different results from scientific studies. Your responses have never addressed this and is getting tiring. Crzyclarks (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested approach

We shouldn't be looking at individual studies on this issue; there are too many, which say too many different things, for us to reconcile without straying into WP:OR. How about we try identifying all available recent, reliable academic reviews of the studies that have been done on the issue, and compile them and identify their central findings, and then draft a proposed new wording based on that?--Trystan (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I was under the impression that recent studies put the number at 1-3%, with few anomalous results. If I'm wrong than by all means change it to reflect the increase/decrease in that number. What I'm objecting to is merging two, very different scientific conclusions from studies on homosexuality and same-sex contact. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Trystan's approach is a good one. And Crzyclarks is correct that we shouldn't be combining two different sources to conclude text that is not made clear by the sources; that most definitely is WP:SYNTH. Flyer22 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty is that we aren't simply summarizing two clearly separate figures into one, but dozens of separate data points. Measures of incidence of homosexuality include self-identification, same-sex attraction, same-sex contact, and more, all with varying definitions from study to study, and widely varying results based on location, how the study was conducted, etc. In that light, I think it would actually be less OR to say there are a variety of measures that lead to this range of results than to assert there are two distinct numbers that emerge from the research. Perhaps the best approach would be to remove the stats entirely until a more thorough canvassing of the sources is done.--Trystan (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed it. I feel the 13% prevalence of same-sex contact isn't reliable. The source doesn't list how many people were polled. I think we should eliminate that source and use the next highest reliable source. Any objections? Crzyclarks (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Was there consensus to change this while waiting for the recent, reliable sources to be compiled? Where is this revision coming from in the sources? – Jonadin (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean when the person changed it to 2-13% or when I changed it back? If it's for me, it's because it would've been synthesising and maybe OR to combine the two results. There are plenty of sources listed there and also in the demographies section which differentiate between same-sex contact and homosexuality very clearly. It might be a little to large a statistic right now, as the British Census or whatever said their results were a 0.3%-1.5% prevalence of homosexuality. Though it could be an anomaly. A more accurate and perhaps less arbitrarily added sources for the statistic is required, though until then we should go on what we know. Combining the two results isn't the conclusion to come by if you think the statistics need to be evaluated. Crzyclarks (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No I just can't see where the second part of the sentence is coming from (probably because I can't access some of the sources), but I think I see the first part is from this source? – Jonadin (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I remember the source that carried our 3 different studies, going on memory, I believe there were 3 each for homosexuality and same-sex contact. The 10% for same-sex contact was actually the highest of the 3 they did, (actually 10.1%), the other two were much lower. The source is there, I can't remember which one though. Crzyclarks (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Link to ENDA inappropriate in intro

In the fourth paragraph, just before the contents list, the word 'employment' is linked to Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It seems a bit odd to link to a specific piece of proposed legislation in one country, especially since similar laws have been passed or proposed in many other countries. The most relevant article I can see is Employment discrimination, or maybe Anti-discrimination law or List of anti-discrimination acts? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I agree the link should take a global view. Unfortunately I'm not sure there's an appropriate place to point. This paragraph deals more with greater legal rights and so the link should deal with lgbt specific anti-discrimination law in employment. I'm not sure any of the above actually deal with this point specifically. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources for homosexuality, same-sex contact and homosexual feelings

The statistics in the introduction about these demographies may need to be reviewed. List the sources that you think should contribute to the number given in the introduction/demography section. Crzyclarks (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I will be honest with you here. I have NEVER heard of 1-3%. The fact that you have used FRC as a source tells me that you have a GRAVE bias toward homosexuals, because the FRC is marked as a known hate group by the SPLC. In addition, they have been shown to have faked their results many times over. Therefore, WHY should we trust you on the 1-3%? Swifty819 (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC) 06:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Granted there is a lot of writing up top, but I said that I got that information from a different editor who posted it somewhere else. Never heard of the FRC before somebody pointed out that it's a bad source. But the sources actually used were statistics from a U.S census and a poll by the gay/lesbian alliance (or something like that) which has nothing to do with FRC. Regarding the 1-3%, sources are used in determining the statistic, not my opinion. I was hoping we could come up with a less arbitrarily stated statistic; by having people posting sources and then deciding which ones to use. Crzyclarks (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, when I saw 1-3%, I was surprised too because I've never seen such a low number either. Family Research Council is indeed an anti-gay hate group that actively lies about gay people. I can see if I can find some sources when I get time. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 02:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Same here - that number seems unusually low. Furthermore, we can never take a percentage like that and say "this is the percentage of gay and lesbian people in [given population]". It would only be the percentage of openly gay people. --Scientiom (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Best to add the sources here before taking their result into account and changing the article because many results have been discarded as an anomaly, such as 0.3% and 4%. The studies are done anonymously, so it is not just openly gay people. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's very difficult to find the number of gay people in the population because it depends on if they are willing to disclose that information for a variety of reasons (prejudice, personal mental stress/struggle, etc.). There should be a note explaining the low numbers. I don't know how to do it. Someone should. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 03:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The study isn't done in the presence of the subject's family and friends. The studies usually take all circumstances into account anyway, so we can't synthesise the results. Also, it's best to keep the result at 1-3% and decide any changes to that number on the talk page and reach a consensus on the studies to be taken into account before changing it. Crzyclarks (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think the 1-6% range should be used because the sources are reliable and provide that range. It's not an anomaly because it's what the sources that are actually used say. Look at it.. Just saying.... .3% isn't there and neither are other numbers you provided. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 03:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at the demography section, 0.3% is another number that needs to be taken into account if you want to add the 6%. Crzyclarks (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Correction to external link

I've noticed that the link for the second Journal Article in the References section is broken, but I don't want to make the correction myself because I'm the technical manager of the site being linked to. It wouldn't be adding a link to our own site, just messing with the one that exists, but I'd rather avoid the impression of COI. The link to the article, "The problem of homosexuality" should be

http://hearth.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=hearth;rgn=full%20text;idno=4732756_885_001;view=image;seq=4

I think the link got truncated because of our site's use of semi-colons. The semi-colons could be replaced with ampersands and the link would still work. The current link sends users to our site's front page and leaves them to look for the article themselves. Assuming that the community agrees to this change, could someone please make the update?

Frances.webb (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, deleting the link also does solve the problem. I had thought that the link was included for historical psychological theories, but maybe there are sufficient other references to accomplish the same thing. Frances.webb (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 18:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality or Bisexuality

There are multiple examples in the texts, such as the African men having male lovers between ages of 12 and 20, where a man is taking advantage of both genders at the same time. The question is whether this pattern is categorized as homosexuality or bisexuality?--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 13:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously bisexuality if it is both genders. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Constructionism/Essentialism

In the article there are some references made to constructionism. I think that it would be useful for the readers to clarify that constructionism considers that sociological phenomena are a socilogical cunstruction. This principle applied to homosexuality results in considering it as a sociological construction. Of importance is also to consider that the position of esentialists is contrary to this, and therefore that homosexuality behaviour along history is the result of the same basic phenomenon. I propose the following pargraph.

"Regarding homosexuality nature and historic expression there are two seemingly opposite positions. These are represented by a constructionist and an essentialist approach. In general Social constructionism considers that there are "social constructions" resulting from the many characteristics of a particular social group, and not from some essential nature of the individual self. On the other hand Essentialists defend the existence of real essences that define the individual’s expressions, and social learned aspects are only secondary. David M. Halperin devotes a chapter:Homosexuality: a cultural construct of his work One Hundred Years of Homosexuality to this subject. . He says that the essentialism applied to sexual categories means that the terms like "gay" or "straight" refer to culturally not modifiable, essentially personal traits. On the contrary, Constructionists mean that these terms are the names of social processes. Halperin leans towards this last position, as he considers that sexuality, including homosexuality, has been expressed in essentially different ways in different historic societies, as it is in present day ones. He, nevertheless, cites Esteven Epstein that compares the controversy between essentialists and constructionists to the general Nature versus Nurture debate. As one of the main representatives of essentialists he cites John Boswell, and Michel Foucault as a prominent constructionist".--Auró (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"As much as 6%"

Is somebody going to revert that obviously biased edit? Crzyclarks (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean biased? Some estimates are even higher. There's always the problem of how to define homosexuality: for example, same-sex sexual behaviour is higher than self-identification.--DVD-junkie | talk | 17:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It should say 0.3% to 6%, or at the very least 1%-6%. "As much as 6%" gives the wrong impression. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually several studies have shown percentages around 6% or up to 8% to 10%. This (the present wording) is probably a fair compromise. Infact, it may be more accurate to say "up to 8% or 10%". --Scientiom (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The majority of studies are 1-3%; that excludes anomalous results. "0.3% to 6%" is more accurate than "as high as 6%", because of the impression it gives. Saying "As high as 6%" gives a different impression on the reader as to the results of the studies. If you say "as high as 6%" then you also need to say "as low as 0.3%". Crzyclarks (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

How can you possibly know what impression it gives? HiLo48 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm a human that can read English. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You can validly tell us what impression YOU get from reading it, but it would only be through extreme arrogance or foolishness that you could claim to know what impression it gives everybody else. Your impression of what impression it gives others means absolutely nothing to Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It means quite a bit, as talking in purely factual language and ignoring the impression it can give would make the article worthless. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Scientiom and HiLo48, as you can see, Crzyclarks just wants to argue over basically nothing. Saying "as much as 6%" given the sources noted is a fair compromise and makes sense according to the facts in the sources. So, if you guys want to find more sources that indicate the higher percentages, that would be nice. Have a great day. Have a great day Crzyclarks. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 20:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Everything that is in the article needs to be factual, but it also needs to take into account the impression it will give the reader. "As much as 6%" is very different to "0.3% to 6%". There is no reason to not have that. I don't want to argue over nothing, this change from specific percentages has been done for an obvious reason. Thanks. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yea, it was done to solve the issue of either beginning at 1% or at .3%. The statement means the exact same thing, don't know what you're talking about. You need to calm down, drink some water or something. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 20:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why 0.3% isn't valid. Nevertheless, few people will see "as much as 6%" to mean it could be as low as 0.3/1%. Technically it means the same thing, but the impression it gives is very different to the results of the studies. I'm calm, usually smiling as I'm listening to The Ricky Gervais Show whilst editing. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not my impression. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's invalid, but it's included obviously if it's as much as 6%. Come on, there's no argument here. I'm going to the movies. See you later. lol – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 21:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and again, there are some sources which give higher percentages. The present wording is a fairly fine compromise. --Scientiom (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop pretending that changing the result from "1-3%" to "as much as 6%" is a compromise. You insist on adding anomalous results, but you also need to use the low end of the spectrum. You're being deliberately deceptive by editing that out. Crzyclarks (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, you want to say there are as little an amount of gay people in the world as possible, that's why you want to mention .3% specifically. Yet, it's not that serious and it's included in what the article says now as written. So, what's the problem? I'm not understanding. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 22:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I want the article to be accurate and neutral. I'm as sure 0.3% is too low as 6% is too high. Saying "as much as 6%" is ignoring the minimum according to studies, which is 0.3%. Technically it means the studies could be saying as low as 0% if you have "as much". People will certainly not get that impression, but rather that the studies place the number at around 5% or more. There is no reason to leave out the both ends of the results and it is obviously biased to do so. Crzyclarks (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not ignoring anything, it's giving accurate information while flowing well in it's writing. That would be fine if some buffoon claimed there are 0 gay people. I wouldn't give it any attention. Your impression is pressed. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 23:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't provided a reason to not include the low end of the results. If you're going to include the high, then you need to include the low. What's the point in giving the reader an incomplete picture of the numbers? Crzyclarks (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the editor that got rid of it per his or her reason. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 23:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The statistic needs to be in the lead. Reinstate the 1-3% (or even make it 0.3-6%). The reason why I opened the bolded section above was because I wanted the statistics to be more accurate. 0.3% and 6% is not accurate. Maybe roll back a bit and discuss the statistic the lead should have over there. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead seems fine, I don't follow. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 23:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There should still be statistics for the percentage of gay people. There's statistics for homosexual feelings and same-sex contact and statistics for the prevalence of homosexuality in a homosexuality article is a lot more important than those. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but they must not be statistics moderated by your impressions. After all, 68% of statistics are made up on the spot. My basic point is that we need some real quality sources here, not obviously biased sources. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the sources we have are neutral. Crzyclarks (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Then why do they vary so much? HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they vary too much or on purpose. Studies by the same people performed separately give varying results [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crzyclarks (talk • contribs) 13:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Why? If there's a vague figure the readers deserve an explanation HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead already says it is hard for researchers to get it precise or whatever. After that it should say the results, excluding anomalies of course. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

So you don't actually know why. Maybe someone should find out and add that to the article. Extremely different survey results with no explanation will only fuel prejudices. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment If the article is going to use the POV, As high as 6%, then it should also reflect the adverse POV, As low as 0.3%. If that's what the source concludes. Including the top and bottom rungs of the research presents neutrality.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Jo. Also, giving the top number of an estimate without the bottom is, speaking as a scientist, pretty useless; are you saying it's 5-6%, 1-6%, 0-6%? Who knows, unless you give the bottom estimate. However... figures will vary depending on region, culture, type of survey conducted, etc. I'm sure the percentage in San Francisco is going to be higher than in Kabul (though I may be wrong), therefore the percentages in any study will vary and are of limited use. My conclusion - if you're going to include a percentage, please give the range, not just the top value. k1-UK-Global (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

{{LGBT sidebar}}

This template is an advertising of a LGBT society.Wizikj (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask why?--В и к и T 21:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This template is a first thing in the eyes, and autocratically "everybody" (I know it is an universal quantification, but I thing it is), look at it and read there e.g. "Marriage", but when I put on this link, I see something, what I do not understand (and I thing nobody do understand it) and else link on this template: homophobia, lesbophobia, etc. Wizikj (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're not very clear in what you're trying to say. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. My English is terrible, but the template too. Wizikj (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I catch what Wizikj is trying to express. The template is build in a promotional manner. I think it could be improved, simply changing the way it is presented, using an informative neutral style.--Auró (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it is promotional or even what you mean by that. Is it the picture you object to? Acoma Magic (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I also don't understand where Wizikj is coming from when he says the sidebar is advertising LGBT society. The template is placed on this article because it's part of a series on LGBT topics expressed on the template. I don't know if it's the fact that "Marriage" or "homophobia, lesbophobia, etc." or the flag or whatever on it that makes him uncomfortable. But I don't see how it's advertising anything besides further reading of the LGBT series' topics. If it's the picture contemplating deletion, will we delete all pictures off of all non-LGBT templates and sidebars? Otherwise, that's not neutral. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 00:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets talk about actual matter. The box starts with the following statement:

"Part of a series on Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people"

I used the term "promotional" to qualify this statement. I did so because "part of a series" can be found in many promotional statements. It also focuses on a kind of "people". To put it in a more informative and neutral way could be:

"This article is part of LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) Portal. Find below other selected articles of this same portal".

It has the virtue of using the Wikipedian term "portal" from the very beginning. (In fact this template can be included in the article because it belongs to LGBT portal).--Auró (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, all the sidebars have the same phrasing "Part of a series on..", so your argument makes no sense. Just look at the articles related to religions or other really broad topics that have many specific topics related to them. The infobox wording used here is standard. So, if you're trying to change this one, then all will have to change. Otherwise, that's unequal treatment and doesn't belong here. Your perception that it's doesn't conform to Wiki-policy for whatever reason is your opinion. Maybe you should raise the issue on those other topics as well. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 14:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And on a sidenote, I hope you're not trying to say it's promotional because it says "LGBT people".

Seems like an attempt at denying "LGBT people" actually exist, which would be utterly ridiculous. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 14:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Teammm, basically you are right in your comparison with other portals. I do not plan to undertake a general campaign to improve this, though I do not discard doing it in future.--Auró (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think the current wording is promotional. However, your proposal is a good one, mainly because "people" isn't a very good/accurate word to use because there are articles that aren't mainly to do with the people. You don't need to undertake a campaign, just post your proposed wording at the relevant place and it could be implemented across all the templates. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You can but I doubt it will go anywhere, being that the topics actually do all relate to LGBT people. We can play semantics if you like. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that to act looking only to LGBT project sidebar would be unfair and inefective. This subject needs to be considered taking project related sidebars as a whole.--Auró (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Calling all editors...

We could use more eyes on Focus on the Family. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality listed as a paraphilia at List of paraphilias

Hi, all. Please comment about this at Talk:List of paraphilias#Homosexuality should not be on this list. 109.123.127.204 (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it (it has been restored by another editor pending discussion on the talk page). That article contains a simple list of paraphilias. Homosexuality should not be singled out as a paraphilia that was declassified over 40 years ago (unless we include all other declassified paraphilias during the last century). Homosexuality is not a paraphilia and therefore should not be listed in that article.

Please go over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_paraphilias and comment on the discussion on whether it should be included along with other past paraphilias. One editor is claiming "opinion differs on what is a paraphilia".

Intrepid (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong pro-gay POV in intro

The only mention of contention over the morality and validity of homosexuality is in this controversial paragraph from the lead:

Homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation, along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum (with asexuality sometimes considered a fourth). Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors.[1][3] While there are those who still hold the view that homosexual activity is 'unnatural' or 'dysfunctional',[4] research has shown that homosexuality is an example of normal variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.[1][5] Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people, however, have been shown to cause psychological harm.[6][5]

I actually opened up an RfC on this section about 11 months ago, and ensuing discussion can be found here.

The section remains heavily controversial: here and here are just two examples of subsequent discussions about the wording and content of this paragraph.

The fact that this keeps cropping up for new analysis and modification is a good demonstration of its POV authorship. The only mention of those who believe homosexuality is "unnatural or dysfunctional" is in the midst of a paragraph that attacks the assertion on all sides. This is blatantly misrepresentative; even if the case is made that the basis for this belief is not rooted in peer reviewed science, this position must be given a fairer representation. As it stands, it is hardly about the people who believe homosexuality is problematic at all (only one sentence in the paragraph actually says this), and mostly about why those people are wrong. Such a thing reeks of POV tampering.

The lead must be sanitized and truly be written from a neutral, globalized perspective. Bear in mind that there are many places in the world where homosexuality is still legally proscribed, ostensibly due to its damning effects on society, including many U.S. states.

It is obviously not widely held that homosexuality "is an example of normal variation in human sexuality", and both sides of this major social controversy must be given equal and fair representation in the introduction.

Here is a suggested rewrite (without extant sources and wikilinks for brevity/clarity's sake):

Homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation, along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum (with asexuality sometimes considered a fourth). Western scientific and medical consensus holds that sexual orientation is an involuntary interplay of biological and environmental factors. Some research has shown that homosexuality is an example of normal variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.

Homosexual practice is considered immoral or sinful by major branches of Islam and Christianity, as well as the Law of Moses. Religiously-motivated organizations like Focus on the Family often oppose trends that appear to increase social tolerance of homosexual behavior, and some religious bodies, like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Roman Catholic Church, actively encourage members to oppose legislation that may encourage or sustain homosexual behavior.

Legal recognition of homosexual couples varies by locality, as does the legality of homosexual activity generally; much of Western Europe recognizes many legal privileges for homosexuals, while major Asian countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan criminalize homosexual activity totally, sometimes as a capital crime. In the United States, the legal status of homosexuality is a major political issue. 32 states currently have constitutional amendments forbidding same-sex marriage, and in some cases, the amendments also forbid other types of legal recognition of same-sex couples. 6 states allow same-sex marriage either by statute or judicial action.

Pretty tired, so just a sample that needs some work. I hope some of the frequent editors of this page will recognize that Wikipedia is a place for an unbiased representation of relevant facts, not social activism by editorial violence. The negative viewpoint on homosexuality is huge and deserves equal and fair representation. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be rude, but there is no conflict here. Do you expect us to edit the page on African-Americans to open with "some people think this entire group of people is lazy, unintelligent and good-for-nothing?" or on women to say, "there are many who believe them inferior to men?" The fact is, the ignorant and intolerant are NOT entitled to their opinions. We do not encourage malice towards human beings, which is implied by loaded words like "immoral" and "sinful." The opening paragraph in the article on Jews refers to their historical persecution in ONE sentence and does not attempt to equally represent the viewpoint that they are untrustworthy or evil, even though polls have shown that up to 15% of non-Jewish Americans are antisemitic.

There is no obligation anywhere to cater to anyone's bigotry, no matter how widespread it is. I am not a "pro-homosexual" anymore than I am an "anti-Christian." I am an atheist, have some level of contempt for religious ideas and practices, and yet I would not argue that we need to edit the opening paragraph on Christianity to include my viewpoint that it is BS, even though, clearly, such a viewpoint is valid. 69.120.1.55 (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see [11]. There is, in fact, an obligation on WP's part to provide fair and impartial representation to "cater to [someone]'s bigotry", if you consider fair and impartial representation of what are, in your opinion, bigoted points of view, catering.

"Sinful" and "immoral" does not encourage malice toward human beings, only to certain behaviors.

As to the Christianity lead, atheism is not specific to Christianity and therefore belongs in the lead of a more general article, like theism, where atheism **is** mentioned in the lead. Its mention is impartial, too, though on this article the only mention of opposition is couched in language specifically crafted to discredit the POV before it is even introduced. There are other distinguishing factors, but I feel no need to go further on that point. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 12:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinions about homosexuality are already covered pretty well in the History section. They do not deserve equal treatment in the lead, which is there to explain what homosexuality is. —Kerfuffler 01:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If the lead is only meant to explain what homosexuality is and nothing more, it needs serious revision.cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 12:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"It is obviously not widely held that homosexuality "is an example of normal variation in human sexuality."" Well, it's not widely held by bigots, nor the ignorant (sorry to be redundant), but it's certainly widely held by the people who matter to an encyclopedia: experts in sexology, biology, zoology, philosophy, etc. WP doesn't give WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE views, nor do we attempt to WP:BALANCE mainstream academic views with bigotry, even if the bigotry is based on ignorance and not malice. Of course I could be wrong and I welcome you to check google scholar for sources that state as such. Sædon^talk 01:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No Saedon, you're right. Teammm ^TM 06:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely right. And as for "considered immoral or sinful by major branches of Islam and Christianity, as well as the Law of Moses", what an outrageous generalisation. Many members of just about all churches are quite comfortable with homosexuality. HiLo48 (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The language could be tweaked, but it is clear that those who have become "quite comfortable" with homosexuality are revisionists. And, it's not a generalization; just because some members of these religions have made themselves comfortable, doesn't mean that there aren't *major branches* which haven't. Episcopalians consider homosexuality OK, but Roman Catholics, Mormons, Southern Baptists, et al, officially do not. Most Muslims are not comfortable with homosexuality, as evidenced by the criminal penalties in Muslim countries for engagement in the practice. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

From WP:FRINGE: "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence". Note that Wikipedia does not summarize **only** the opinion of academics or professionals. Wikipedia is not a trade journal, but an encyclopedia, and it should cover topics that are generally relevant, not just clinically relevant.

As for the prominence of the opinion, there are over 1 billion Catholics alone, representative of one-seventh of the world's population, and the Catholic church continues to officially condemn homosexuality. In all, there is probably something like 50% of world population affiliated with religious groups that indicate homosexuality as a problematic behavior.

On bigotry: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views . In short, WP policy requires that even "morally repugnant" views are granted equal representation. These views are even more important than normal as they are the source of much political friction in the United States and other localities around the world. And it is worth noting that although the segment that is generally inclined to edit Wikipedia seems to, generally speaking, hold a positive view of homosexuality, there are **huge** groups of real people in the real world with the opposite feeling, and find the bigotry on the part of the gay rights activists that are attempting to force social acceptance upon an unwilling public through legislative means, and in some cases actively seeking to limit religious freedom in order to enforce this acceptance.

And, finally, scholarly resources that contradict the lead: [12] ; [13] ; [14] ; [15] . This list, of course, is not comprehensive, so need to say "great, three studies..." or similar, just a sample. The interested reader is free to continue his pursuit independently.

NARTH is a professional association that publishes a peer-reviewed journal on human sexuality, rejects the APA's claim with regard to homosexuality, and has contributions from many practitioners that contradict the generally held POV. These represent credible disagreement. NARTH is not a religious or ex-gay association, as other editors have posited in the past. Its members and contributors are PhDs that discuss real findings and issues.

At some point all of this must cross a threshold for you. If it isn't enough to have significant scientific dissent, clear demonstration that at least some of the APA's claims with regard to homosexuality are incompletely researched and unverified, and likely installed only for political considerations, and ~50% of the world population affiliated with groups and philosophies that identify homosexuality as a discrete and serious evil, what do you want? Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a trade journal, and we do not need a majority of psychologists or other relevant professionals to agree with a view in order for it to qualify for fair representation and inclusion. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 12:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You're making a HELL of a lot of presumptions there, not the least of which is that a billion Catholics actually care what the pope has to say about homosexuality. You might be surprised how few actually do. In any case, you're presuming to speak for others, and thereby inflating your numbers, which is not going to get you anywhere other than in the lake with the trout. Furthermore, claiming that NARTH somehow has weight in this is asinine; they have a stated goal of “curing” homosexuality, and cannot possibly be considered an unbiased (nee reliable) source. And even if 90% of the world did believe what you claim (which they don't), it still doesn't belong in the lead, and it's still covered elsewhere in the article. And please don't post any more absurdly long responses, because they're not worth the time to read; also see WP:FILIBUSTER. —Kerfuffler 12:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I hardly think six paragraphs is "absurdly long", first of all.

Secondly, NARTH is brought into play because Saedon invited me to link to professionals of divergent opinion. NARTH is the largest such trade association in the West of relevant professionals (of which I am aware). If you could provide a source that indicates their "stated goal of 'curing' homosexuality", I would appreciate it, as I seemingly cannot find that information. It seems that they are a notable group of qualified professionals who do not agree with the APA's assessment that a) homosexuality is not harmful or b) homosexuality cannot be treated if a client desires such treatment.

With regard to Catholics who "care" what the Pope says, there's not really a good way to measure that, and Catholicism was used an example, an illustration of the relevance and prevalence of the belief; even if we say there are too many lapsed Catholics for that to count (which I think is extremely dubious, both in absolute terms and with reference to this methodology), there are certainly not too many lapsed Muslims or too many lapsed conservative Protestants to make the POV of the de-facto organizing bodies irrelevant.

Your invocation of WP:FILIBUSTER is utterly unjustifiable. I am attempting to correlate a decent NPOV representation for this article on its talk page. I am not engaging in disruptive edits or bad faith. If you feel my [rather short] posts are too long, you are free to not read them.

As for placement in the lead, please see the RfC I linked in my initial post under this header. The broad consensus was that the skeptical point of view belonged in the lead. I left shortly after opening that RfC and was disappointed to see that some contributors considered what's there now a fair representation, but the consensus clearly indicated that the controversial nature of homosexuality did indeed belong in the lead. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 13:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even going to respond to most of what you wrote, because it's just rehashing old material. The fact is, your entire argument here is constructionist: “by my vague estimate, there are a bunch of people who hate homosexuality, therefore it's important enough to go in the lead”. That fails in numerous ways, but the two most critical are: your estimate is a crock and unjustifiable, and what people hate in no way justifies turding up the description of the actual item, especially when, as I've said twice now and you've ignored, it's already discussed later in the article. And there's no question you're filibustering; you've written substantially the same thing several times, and each time long-winded. I'm not reading it again. As for the RfC, clearly it's old enough, and the discussion here so far corroborates, WP:CCC. —Kerfuffler 13:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, you are aware that the entire purpose of NARTH is to convert people from being gay? With reversion therapy that's highly disputed by the APA? And based on research claims that even the researchers say NARTH falsified? Have you done any research on this? Even your claim about the membership is false—most of the members are not mental health professionals or PhDs at all. —Kerfuffler 14:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And not to Godwin this, but I note this paper is still on the NARTH web site. Don't even try to tell me they're objective. —Kerfuffler 15:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, there's another little fact you missed. NARTH claims to have 1000 members. Even if all of them were psychiatrists—and they aren't—compared to the APA's 150,000, that puts them firmly in the WP:FRINGE category, and therefore you cannot use anything they say here. —Kerfuffler 22:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it could be mentioned, but not without clearly framing it as a minority/fringe viewpoint. And certainly not in the lead. Discounting the disputed legitimacy of their assorted ideas, a claimed membership of less than 1% of the largest, most authoritative organization in the field makes them a very small minority, which is barely enough for a mention at all, let alone one in the lead (see the policy on undue weight for more information on this). elektrikSHOOS (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum

Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum, and should contain relevance only to the article at hand. Recent talk messages on this article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality#Homosexuality_listed_as_a_paraphilia_at_List_of_paraphilias and Calling all editors... show that not only is this talk page being abused, but that its main caretakers have a heavy pro-homosexuality bias and are specifically notified when a negative mention of homosexuality appears elsewhere on Wikipedia. The correct venue for such announcements is most likely the WP:LGBT Wikiproject, so please post further solicitations there. It's probably in the interest of the editors of this page to at least keep an inkling of an appearance of impartiality by not allowing abuse of the talk page for pro-gay solicitations and review requests. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No comment on the above discussion, but I'll agree on this point. Notifications about discussions shouldn't be on this talk page unless they're directly related to this article. Anything else could be misconstrued as canvassing. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

LGBT Community Implied by "Homosexuality"?

Per the introduction of this article, homosexuality "implies" membership in the LGBT community. The sourced articles notwithstanding, doesn't this seem to be overreaching a bit? Homosexuality implies desire for the same sex, but not necessarily membership in a certain community. Moreover, "LGBT community", even when taken in its broadest sense, would only include those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (and perhaps queer, etc.). Not everyone who desires the same sex (= is homosexual) would identify themselves in one of these ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.172.228 (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that definitely doesn't follow logically. —Kerfuffler 01:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2012

human sexual intercourse vedio 188.54.60.176 (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what is being requested here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

They want us to add a file of a human sex video, apparently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Scare quotes in the lead

Unnatural and dysfunctional are currently in scare quotes and betrays a POV. It is the standard usage of those words and the words are far from uncommon. Therefore, unless there are reasons to put them in scare quotes that I'm missing, the scare quotes should be removed. Acoma Magic (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Although scare quotes can be overused, there is no policy or guideline to say they can never be used.

From the Chicago Manual of Style..."Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense [...] They imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is usually applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused."

In the case you highlighted above, I believe they are appropriately used. "Unnatural" and "dysfunctional" as valid descriptors for homosexual activity is a minority view and also fails scientific scrutiny. Homosexual activity is observed in thousands of animal species ranging from mosquitoes to Bonobos. – MrX 12:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I like this from the article: "Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion." Applies both to Wikipedia as a whole and in the fact that it's mentioned in the context of academic discussion. You may like the fact that it takes a certain POV, but it's just more likely to make the reader think the article is biased, as, for example, the bolding of "marriage equality" does at the same-sex marriage article. This alienates readers and it's very bad for Wikipedia and the articles themselves. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Unnatural" and "Dysfunction" represent a minority POVs, and even fringe POVs among educated people. Adding quotes acknowledges that and helps to balance the neutrality of the sentence. Ultimately, it comes down to editorial judgement, and in this case, there seems to a rough consensus for keeping the quotes. – MrX 13:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd support getting rid of the quotes. In the sentence,"While there are those who still hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural or dysfunctional, research has shown that homosexuality is an example of normal variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects," we aren't using unnatural or dysfunctional in a non-standard sense; that is exactly how some people view homosexuality. That the application of those terms to homosexuality is a particular, unscientific POV is clear from the sentence. The scare quotes, to my mind, give the whole sentence an ironic voice that undermines the point it is conveying.--Trystan (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't have a strong preference either way, but other editors may. – MrX 16:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, the quotes are appropriate and help show readers that those are specific words used by those who oppose LGBT rights for example. The words should be not in Wikipedia's voice in any manner. --Scientiom (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense. It already says "there are those who still hold the view that homosexual activity is ..." It's already saying that those are the words and that's what some people think. I'm not even going to bother with the "Wikipedia's voice" reason. Acoma Magic (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Last graph in lead

The last graph in the lead has the following sentance Many gay and lesbian people are in committed same-sex relationships, though only recently have census forms and political conditions facilitated their visibility and enumeration.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. Do you think this might be a tad oversourced?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably should be consolidated. --Scientiom (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Source with broken link to Journal of AMA article - possible replacement link

Source 112 (Gay is OK according to AMA) link appears to be broken. A better and more permanent link (however, one which requires subscription for full text) may be: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187846

Done. Jokestress (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes.

There have been a flurry of edits from User:Little green rosetta, all of them immediately reverted by different editors, and most of them constituting reverts. While the behavior is unacceptable, it's still possible that some of the suggested changes might have merit. I'm opening this section up to encourage discussion on this topic, so that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Concerns

I have a few concerns about prose and sources. First, I note that the immediate description of the term "Homosexuality" refers to "Romance" and I dispute that. Romantic thoughts or feelings are not sexual in nature and this has no citation. The Etymology is way off and concludes the etymology as written to be factual and the the link does not actually say that. In fact there is some information of encyclopedic value missing from the history of the term that is found on that link. The reference used does not appear to be RS and does not appear to actually be from a periodical of the University of Waterloo, but a simple online dictionary that looks like it might be self published. This is from just a quick scan of the lede and first section, but it gives me great concern that the article is lacking accurate information--Amadscientist (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I also note that there is a line of prose that should not be on this article and has no reference. Why is there any mention of the term "gay" under Etymology?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a great deal in that first section that does not belong. Much of it fits in the article, but not in the section. An etymology is just the origin of the actual term and should not contain references to "Queer Eye for the Staight Guy."--Amadscientist (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

In looking into why the term romance is used, I see that there was an attempt to link the term with "relationships" further down in the "Same-sex romance and relationships" section. The problem is all the links are dead that refer to romance and relationship. A relationship is not necessarily romantic. It can be but the link between "Relationship" and "romantic feelings" is disputed and lacks any inline citation. The simple fact is, romance is a state that is neither sexual or involves an actual relationship. A relationship invovles two people, while romatic feelings do not. "Puppy love" as I understand it can be in the form of idolization from even completely straight personalities.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Further reading shows some decent sources here, but the prose does give undue weight to the term "romance". see further down on this talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am removing an image for now that appears to have an improper license. The ancient Egyptian image should not contain a copyright notice on Wikipedia. We do not allow copyrighted images (no copyright notice should be used in summary). If the image is indeed being allowed by the photgrapher, they must confirm such through OTRS. This has not been done. If the photographer is not allowing the image to be used it would require being uploaded as "Fair use" and there would be no need for it as free versions may well be available.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also removing the image of the Warren cup. Its authenticity has been, and is indeed still questioned. Why have an image with a question mark in the image description?--Amadscientist (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am moving a paragraph here to the talkpage where it can be discussed as to whether or not it should be used. There is are references for any of it. If we wish to return it, we need reliable sources for it:

Some synonyms for same-sex attraction or sexual activity include men who have sex with men or MSM (used in the medical community when specifically discussing sexual activity) and homoerotic (referring to works of art). Pejorative terms in English include queer, faggot, fairy, poof, and homo. Beginning in the 1990s, some of these have been reclaimed as positive words by gay men and lesbians, as in the usage of queer studies, queer theory, and even the popular American television program Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. The word homo occurs in many other languages without the pejorative connotations it has in English. As with ethnic slurs and racial slurs, however, the misuse of these terms can still be highly offensive; the range of acceptable use depends on the context and speaker. Conversely, gay, a word originally embraced by homosexual men and women as a positive, affirmative term (as in gay liberation and gay rights), has come into widespread pejorative use among young people.

Resolved

--Amadscientist (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Kinsey's studies have value on this article...but not spread out all over the place. I won't make any changes there for now but have removed one line from a section that had no reference and seemed to lead into another study that had better sourcing. I did remove the term romantic from the relationship section as I do actualy dispute the way it is being used within the article. The first source I looked at is not using the term in a manner that really needs emphasis. It is simple a descripter used for relationship. We may want some information on the "romantic" angle, but we need better sources that discuss it directly before we title a section with the term as it seems to be lifting the term from the source with undue weight.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you claiming the information in that quote is contentious? —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  20:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

What quote? Do you mean the above passage?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Causes of sexual orientation

Hey, everyone. Refer to the Talk:Sexual orientation#Causes of sexual orientation discussion for why I reverted these edits that were made to the lead. I started the discussion at the Sexual orientation talk page to keep the discussion, which concerns two other articles, in one place. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

With regard to your edit: Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors, especially with regard to early uterine environment.

From the APA source:

Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

From the AAP article:

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.2 In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts.

I assume that we're on the same page with regard to "environmental factors" referring to sociological factors, as opposed to "early uterine environment" referring to biological factors.

Based on these, I believe that your edit gives excessive weight to the environmental theory, and does so by implicitly synthesizing a conclusion from two different meanings of environment/environmental.

– MrX 19:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, MrX. I thank you for looking after this article as you so often do. It's always good to have more editors who keep things within appropriate perspective, as, from what I have seen, you have done so far with regard to LGBT topics. I don't entirely understand your above reasoning, though, or why you chose to discuss this here instead of keeping it in one place. But we are partially in agreement that, in the case of these authoritative sources, "environmental factors" refer to sociological factors as opposed to "early uterine environment." I state "partially" because, as was made clear in the previous discussion about this, "environmental factors" with regard to sexual orientation can refer refer to "uterine environment" and "sociological factors." Your argument about what "environmental factors" in these cases mean, however, is why I stated that it is explicitly clear that these researchers don't only mean "uterine environment" when they state "environmental factors" or "environmental influences"; they list "hormonal" and "environmental" separately because they state that all of these factors -- biology, hormones (which are considered biological by various reliable sources, including ones on sexual orientation) and social environment -- are involved in a complex interplay when it comes to forming sexual orientation. As noted by the American Psychological Association, which is authoritative, and as you partially cited above, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles." And as also shown above, while the second source you cite states "In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts," it also states, "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." The American Psychiatric Association, which is also authoritative, states: "No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality... ... Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual."

So, because of all this, WP:Consensus here was that we should not state that sexual orientation is only biological/hormonal when no authoritative source on sexual orientation states that. The consensus wording was "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors.", which is supported by the two sources backing that line. That is not WP:SYNTHESIS or giving WP:UNDUE to the environmental theory in the least. That is reporting what the authoritative sources on sexual orientation state. As I made clear in the extensive discussion about this, it is not up to us to determine what the researchers mean by "environmental factors" or "environmental influences"; they don't specify what they mean by it, but they do give weight to both "uterine environment" and "sociological factors," while making it very clear that they don't definitively know what causes sexual orientation. Only recently was the "especially" text about early uterine environment added to the lead. And this is what followed:[16][17][18][19][20][21][22]

I have no problem with including "rather a complex interplay of biological, hormonal and environmental factors"...since "hormonal" specifically addresses "early uterine environment," but it was agreed that "early uterine environment" is covered by "biological." The only thing I have problem with on this topic is relaying that scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is biological/hormonal only...when the authoritative sources state the opposite of that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, I neglected to read the linked discussion at the other article, because I was confused. I agree that the possibility of environmental factors should be mentioned in the article, especially if consensus supports it. I propose this wording, based on your last paragraph above:

Scientific and medical understanding of sexual orientation is that it is not a choice. Current theories suggest that sexual orientation may result from a complex interplay of biological, hormonal and environmental factors.

This would address my concern about having two meanings of environment/environmental in the same sentence, and I believe it addresses your concerns as well. – MrX 21:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am fine with that wording, MrX. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this revert, I agree that we should discuss this at the Sexual orientation talk page. By that, I mean in one place instead of two. I have already explained there why I object to that revert by Scientiom, and I mentioned you there as well, MrX. Flyer22 (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted Scientom's Temporarily revert to stable version before my edits on October 2nd without prejudice to the contents of the edit. This is a completly inappropriate type of edit.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Continuing your stalking of me I see? I think you need to stop this groundless reverting and edit-warring through stalking editors. Per WP:BRD, I returned the lead to the stable version before my own edits on October 2nd. Per WP:STATUSQUO, that is what should be maintained unless consensus says otherwise. --Scientiom (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Scientiom and I have continued discussion at the Sexual orientation talk page. And like I recently stated to him, the version that he reverted to actually isn't the consensus version. Unless we consider it consensus because no one had objected to it since its September 18, 2012‎ placement. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Your claims of "stalking" are bullshit. This article is on my watchlist. If you don't want me to revert you, then stop making inappropriate edits.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The only one making inappropriate edits here seems to be you. The change you're trying to edit-war in removes sourced information, and instead adds a redundant term “hormonal” (which is included in “biological”) as an inadequate substitute. Furthermore, I suggest that it plays into the conservative agenda of casting science you don't like as “theories” in order to imply a negative connotation. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  22:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even commenting on the content of the edit. I don't even care about this term and the spat some editors are having. I do care about abuse of process. Scientom has an issue with following BRD only when it suits them. This caught my eye when I saw it appear on my watchlist. I was well within my rights to say that we don't do "temporary reverts". We improve articles. And watch the personal attacks please. You have no clue as to what my political leanings arre in any case.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Did I misread that, or did you just say you decided to engage in an edit war without bothering to review the content? Go away, troll. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  22:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No I read it. I disagree with Scientom's gaming.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@lgr, I'm trying to understand why you thought it was a good idea to remove 10 sources, not to mention a very relevant piece of content. Do you really not see the significance of same sex relationships being recorded in censuses? – MrX 22:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No disagreement with the content, nor the sources. I do disagree with the lead abuse that has been going on here and at many other articles. If the content is not in the body, it doesn't belong in the lead. Why is it that some editors feel their "point" must be raised in the lead?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The content is in the body, but not in the neat, encapsulated form that you may expect. Keywords: 'census', 'same sex marriage', 'relationships' and 'political'. I can't address your concerns about the lede containing too much, because I just haven't experienced that issue in the ~5000 articles that I've touched. In an article with high visibility like this one, these things works themselves out, through BRD, consensus and other processes. – MrX 23:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Kerfuffler, per what I stated to Scientiom, the reason that it was decided, in the consensus reached last year, not to use "hormonal" is because "biological" can cover "hormonal." And the reason we didn't include "biological" and "genetic" is because genetics are an aspect of biology, and it is therefore redundant to include "biological" and "genetic"; the sources on this always use one term or the other, even if starting off using the word "biological" before going into specifically stating "genetic," and we should use one or the other as well. Since the sources use "genetic" (typically anyway, as shown above) and since "genetic" is more specific than "biological," we should use it in place of "biological." Instead of adding MrX's wording which includes "theories," if including "theories" is considered to carry a negative connotation, I feel that we should word it as "rather a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors" and drop "especially with regard to early uterine environment" per my and MrX's reasoning on that; the latter is WP:SYNTHESIS because the sources do not state it or even imply it -- that sexual orientation is especially due to early uterine environment. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. What the source cited for the “uterine environment” part says is:

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.

So that actually says: environmental factors (in the sense implied by our text) don't apply at all. Now, where are you arguing that the synthesis is, again? Because it appears to be in a different place. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  23:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Kerfuffler. I have been clear here, very clear, as shown above and at the Sexual orientation talk page. But I'll also be clear that I am not some religious conservative that you have to protect this article from, as many at this site know, since I am getting that feeling from your response to me above. MrX clearly isn't either. I am, however, someone who usually defers to what scientific consensus states. Like I stated to Scientiom: After I explained to MrX that "The consensus wording was 'Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors.', which is supported by the two sources backing that line. That is not WP:SYNTHESIS or giving WP:UNDUE to the environmental theory in the least. That is reporting what the authoritative sources on sexual orientation state.", he agreed with me. It's all there above, what I stated to MrX and what MrX agreed with. Scientific consensus is not that sexual orientation is only biological/hormonal. This source, this source and this source above make this very clear. There is no true consensus among scientists on this topic, except that sexual orientation is not a choice. But what most scientists do believe on this topic is that sexual orientation is determined by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors. The Royal College of Psychiatrists source stating that "It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment" does not trump what the other (or more) authoritative sources state on this subject. The Royal College of Psychiatrists source doesn't even state "is"; it states "would appear." And while it states that "there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation," the other sources acknowledge that there is no conclusive evidence that sexual orientation is only biological/hormonal. The American Psychiatric Association, for example, states, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality." So, in summary, the "especially with regard to early uterine environment" text is WP:SYNTHESIS because none of the sources state or even imply that sexual orientation is especially due to early uterine environment. The Royal College of Psychiatrists source that you cite states "determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment"; it uses "and," not "especially," and its tagged onto the consensus wording as though it supports the other two sources' position that environmental factors, which can be uterine environment or social experiences, are likely included. Again, the other sources report differently than that source, stressing that while biological models are favored by the scientific community, the scientific community does not definitively know what causes sexual orientation; they believe that genetic, hormonal and environmental factors ("environmental" as in covering "social experiences" when "uterine environment" is already covered by "hormonal") all contribute to the cause of sexual orientation in complex ways. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Section break: Somewhat off-topic

Flyer22, could you explain why you think a discussion on another article justifies any changes to this article?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As shown above, the editor whose edits I reverted -- Scientom -- made the same edits not only to this article, but to the Sexual orientation article and the Biology and sexual orientation article. It all has to do with reporting what scientists believe to be the causes of sexual orientation, which was part of an extensive discussion at this talk page last year. And instead of revisiting that discussion at three different articles, I chose to have it at one article. The Sexual orientation article seemed (and still seems) the most relevant, as it is the main article for the topic of sexual orientation. It makes no sense to be inconsistent across articles in reporting what scientists state they believe to be the causes of sexual orientation, which is why Scientom made the change to three different articles. A discussion at one article has justified changes at another article plenty of times here at Wikipedia, when the discussion concerns a topic that affects other articles in the way that this does.

As for this discussion, like I told Dominus Vobisdu, I get the feeling that as soon as "environmental factors" is mentioned, a few editors get the impression that the person stating that is some religious conservative. I am far from that, and contribute to LGBT topics regularly. Above, I mentioned that I'm someone who usually defers to scientific consensus/what most scientists state. That is the case here. Stating that most scientists believe that sexual orientation is determined by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors is not stating that sexual orientation is a choice or that it can be solely due to environmental (as in social) factors. The keywords are "combination" and "complex interplay." The sources make clear that sexual orientation is not a choice, but they (two of them) also very clearly state that scientists believe that it is not determined by any one factor...but by a combination of all of these. And as also mentioned, it is not up to us to determine what the researchers mean by "environmental factors" or "environmental influences"; they don't specify what they mean by it, but they do give weight to both "uterine environment" and "sociological factors," while making it very clear that they don't definitively know what causes sexual orientation. That is my point when it comes to the topic of reporting the causes of sexual orientation. The only problem with the current lead of this article that I have, aside from the oversourcing of two lines, is the "especially with regard to early uterine environment" wording; this is because it is WP:SYNTHESIS for the reasons noted above. If the lead stays that way, I won't mind much...since it has been returned to its state of not reporting that sexual orientation is only caused by genetic/hormonal factors. But I did want to try to get others to see why that wording is not best. So far, MrX is the only one here who has acknowledged that; he brought up the WP:SYNTHESIS issue first. Although I saw that synthesis problem from the start, I decided not to remove it because I didn't want to get into a big debate about all of this again. As we can see, that happened anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not making any assumptions of you Flyer. Just that, regardless of good intentions, this article and its consensus cannot be overridden by the consensus on the other articles regardless of how logical it may seem. It only creates more problems than it solves. I don't really like giving too much weight to a source because it is "scientific" in regards to sexual identity, preference and desires. My research doesn't differ too much from your own, except I just like to see a wider variety of sources as the scientific community has altered its stance on this in just the last twenty years...drasticly. Homosexuality is not a scientific field and needs the input of a lot of sources to make the claims you are making. Not that I would agree or disagree with it, just that this is so far from a consensus in even that community (scientific, that is) that I would hesitate to claim anything as absolute by that judgement alone.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, I wasn't speaking about you with regard to the religious conservative part. And as for "this article and its consensus cannot be overridden by the consensus on the other articles," I've stated that "A discussion at one article has justified changes at another article plenty of times here at Wikipedia, when the discussion concerns a topic that affects other articles in the way that this does." and I stick by that, as I have seen it time and time again, including at administrative noticeboards. And this discussion is about this article, as is clear from above. It's not just about the Sexual orientation article. It's about three articles, like I stated, and I invited editors from these three articles to discuss this in one place. See above where I stated that the edits concern three different articles. I did not want to discuss the same edit, made to three different articles, in three different places. And I am sure that no one else would have wanted to either, as is clear by most of the discussion having taken place here. Taking a discussion (that concerns multiple articles) to one place is common practice on Wikipedia. I used that common practice in this regard.

About the claims... The claims I made about scientists are claims made by authoritative sources on sexual orientation, and these sources are not from twenty or even ten years ago. They are up-to-date. Homosexuality is a scientific field, according to authoritative sources. What comes with "a wider variety of sources" is a wide variety of personal opinions about sexual orientation from whatever author. Editors would cherry-pick their favorite authors, or favorite lines from whatever book, to support any stance they have on sexual orientation. This is why we are supposed to defer to authoritative bodies for this information. You state that "this is so far from a consensus in even that community (scientific, that is) that I would hesitate to claim anything as absolute by that judgement alone." If you are referring to sexual orientation not being a choice, in addition to it being believed to be a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors... I have to state that from what I have researched, most scientists studying sexual orientation do believe that. They state that sexual orientation is not a choice, that they don't definitively know what causes it...and that they believe that it is a combination of the aforementioned factors. So it does appear that your research differs much from mine. But I don't see this discussion between us as too related to my expressed concerns above, and would rather stay completely on-topic in that regard (that is why I added the "somewhat off-topic" heading). Flyer22 (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(Got this far and decided to comment) "A discussion at one article has justified changes at another article plenty of times here at Wikipedia, when the discussion concerns a topic that affects other articles in the way that this does." You will have to demonstrate that and not just claim such and if it isn't to policy then we have a problem right there. (back to the rest of your reply)--Amadscientist (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's demonstrated all the time on Wikipedia. That you have not experienced it is something I don't know how to reply to. But I certainly don't have to cite an example as though I am citing text in a Wikipedia article. I'm certainly not interested in digging up any one case. And not all practices on Wikipedia are based on policy, as I'm sure you know. Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If you cannot demonstrate the claims you are making by showing the consensus discussion or the guideline or policy it will, of course, be dismissed. Not out of hand but as a matter of local consensus. You don't get to take over this article with a consensus from somewhere else without justifying it to the satisfaction of the involved parties.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You can claim that "Homosexuality is a scientific field, according to authoritative sources" but as above if you can't demonstrate it, its just original research. There are many areas of academia that study sexuality and the scientific community is but one and, as I said, they are not all in agreement. If you don't show even the mainstream objections or opposing opinion of whatever validity it may have then you would be pushing POV. Not that you are, but you have to understand this is an encyclopedia (which I am sure you do understand, but...) and in such we don't use what we strongly believe in. We weigh the sources and lay out the best argument, discussion or explanation in prose. I don't think you are doing that by relying strictly on the one opinion of one part of the scientific community. And I actually believe I had no choice in being gay, but there are other people who may have had a different experiance than me and we cannot dismiss everyone but ourselves, as we cannot dismiss all other sorces but the ones we feel strongly about.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

About the practice... You can dismiss it of course. But I've explained sufficiently above that this isn't about "tak[ing] over this article with a consensus from somewhere else." It's about discussing, in one place, the same edits made to three articles; since I informed the editors of those articles of the discussion concerning the edits made to their respective articles, this means that people from all of those articles would be discussing and deciding on the wording for their respective articles. Discussions about an article's text do not always happen at the article's talk page. Sometimes...they happen at a related article's talk page, a noticeboard, or an editor's talk page. I'm not sure how you haven't experienced that, especially since it is often the case with dispute resolution. But anyway... What is also already clear is that WP:CONSENSUS at this article is for the wording that I was arguing for; wording that was decided last year. There was no consensus achieved for the current wording of "especially with regard to early uterine environment"; nor should consensus matter in a WP:SYNTHESIS case.

As for claims again... The sources above this section show that homosexuality is a scientific field. Sexual orientation, which includes homosexuality, is a scientific field. I can demonstrate that easily, but it's not my job to supply you with sources. And I don't have to debate with them; I sometimes choose to, but it's certainly not an every-time thing. You can just as easily go to Google Books and Google Scholar yourself and see that homosexuality is discussed within a scientific context, even though that is already clear from the sources above this section and many in this article. Clearly, we are defining "scientific field" differently. And I never stated that scientists are all in agreement about the topic of sexual orientation, nor have I ever implied that. What I did state is what authoritative sources state. And mainstream objections? It's mainstream scientific belief that sexual orientation is a choice, for example? Not from what I've read, and I've read a lot on the topic. We don't give WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to minority views and certainly not to WP:FRINGE views. Going by authoritative sources has nothing to do with my personal POV or what I strongly believe in, other than my belief that authoritative sources are what we should defer to...per the reasons I've already gone over. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You are really not doing anything but talking (or typing) and are so incorrect about Wikipedia guidelines. You really do want this article to state as indisputable fact what you feel regardless of other mainstream opinion and are indeed pushing POV if you refuse to allow other mainstream opinion with due weight. That doesn't mean it has to be the same weight, but then we also dont place romance before sexuality on an article about sexuality. And as for DR I will tell you this- if a discussion has not been made on the artcile that the dispute is about I would kick it back to the articles talk page as not having extensive discussion. As was mentioned before, editors on the article itself being altered should not be excluded for your own conveniance.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not an article on sexuality, it's an argument on homosexuality, which includes romantic attraction, not just sexual. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, I consider you to be doing nothing but talking (or typing) in this regard as well. At least I have pointed to reliable sources on this particular subject, authoritative ones at that. And I stated nothing of Wikipedia guidelines. I stated that "Discussions about an article's text do not always happen at the article's talk page. Sometimes...they happen at a related article's talk page, a noticeboard, or an editor's talk page." And that statement is 100% correct, as many at this site know. Since you like visiting administrator Dennis Brown's talk page, an editor I am acquaintances with, why don't you ask him about it? I am going by mainstream opinion with regard to what I stated above about scientists' beliefs. That is what is meant by "authoritative sources" in this respect. You have offered none that counter those beliefs. It does not bother me in the least that you attribute my deferring to authoritative sources to POV-pushing, because POV-pushing is not at all connected with me on this topic or any topic on Wikipedia. And as you can see, we do indeed "place romance before sexuality on an article about sexuality." But if you want "sexual" to come before "romantic," I wouldn't throw a fuss about it. As long as "romantic" stays...per the authoritative sources. You don't have to tell me anything about dispute resolution. I know all about it; I'm not a newbie. Yes, you would "kick it back to the article['s] talk page as not having extensive discussion," but many at this site, including me at times, would not. Extensive discussion about an article's text can happen at places beside that's article talk page, as I've made very clear. That is what I have seen happen with many disputes, including at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. No editors were excluded for my own convenience. I don't know what isn't clear about "since I informed the editors of those articles of the discussion concerning the edits made to their respective articles, this means that people from all of those articles would be discussing and deciding on the wording for their respective articles." Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeing it happen does not mean it is the correct manner to work towards a collaborative consensus. You would seriously drag Dennis Brown into this? (And its getting really fucking annoying the way you discuss me and where I "like visiting" on Wikipedia. Discuss the contribution and not the contributer) If you want to canvass others go for it. You made what "you believe" clear, but actually do refuse to demonstrate it on this article and I really am not interested in what you believe or feel. Just show disputing editors where you are getting these "accepted practices" to form a consensus for multiple articles on one location, because DR is only referring to talkpages as in - if disputing editors are at least discussing on their own talkpages and even then we still could make the two discuss on the article's talkpage to allow editors on that page the opportunity to add to the discussion. We don't accept a consenus formed on one article across two or three other articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I would not like to drag Dennis Brown into this. I asked you why don't you ask him a question about what you so wrongly dispute. It wasn't meant to be a serious suggestion; it was meant to show that others have seen what I have seen. And it's quite rich of you to tell me to "Discuss the contribution and not the contribut[o]r"...when I was doing just that. You are the one who made this personal. And what I made clear is not only what "[I] believe" I made clear. Calling me a liar (and don't state that you didn't; implying it is strong enough), despite evidence all over Wikipedia concerning what I stated about talk page practices, including at the aforementioned Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, is quite laughable. Pointing to that noticeboard is demonstrating that "[d]iscussions about an article's text do not always happen at the article's talk page," despite the fact that whatever discussion was had at the article's talk page first. Discussions about the article's text do not always happen at the article's talk page or at the article's talk page first. And again, you are wrong on that last point. The consensus would be concerning their respective articles. It would not be a consensus about one article being applied to another. What you don't grasp about having a discussion about the same edits (made to multiple articles) in one place, I will never know. You state that you aren't interested in what I believe or feel, even though you clearly are, as evidenced above. But you know what? I'm not interested in what you believe or feel. I'd just rather not let your assertions go unchallenged. After this Homosexuality article drama you have started is over, do avoid me in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What I see is this article veering a little off from the body. The Etymology section states "sexual attraction, activity, and orientation". What is wrong with that for the lede.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

A few comments... take them for what little they may be worth:

• On "sexual attraction, activity and orientation", I can see that phrase being used in the lede, perhaps in such a fashion (if it can be made to fit): "Homosexuality, which encompasses aspects of sexual attraction, activity and/or orientation..." - with the "and/or" being in there based on the more expansive body's explanation.

• "other articles not relevant/relevant" - this is a rather silly argument. Facts are this, which fit within Wikipedia's Guidelines. If another article (or section thereof) discusses the *same* topic, and holds a different position, then the matter IS related. That may seem like something inexplicable to some, so let me explain. If "Article A" says "X... Z..." on a matter, and "Article B" says "Y... Z...", and both articles are discussing the same subject, then what that shows is that editors have not done their due diligence on one or both articles (whether through not knowing about or caring about the other article - or whatever reason), and are presenting an incomplete account of the subject matter. Either Article A, or Article B or BOTH articles need to be modified to incorporate and/or remove information so that both articles/sections of articles are consistently showing a non-POV pushing, no OR, neutral representation of the subject matter. Since we are now aware there are differences in the portrayal of the subject matter, doesn't it behoove us to figure out (a) why, and (b) which article(s) need to be fixed?

Does that make sense? As a simple example, if two articles on the same subject say opposing things, then perhaps (a) they both should have content added that the other has to show a lack of bias in the presentation of the subject matter, and/or (b) they should both be reviewed for bias and due weight, and/or (c) a variety of other things.

Back to the simple fact part - in this reality, it is not possible for "Subject A" to be one thing - but magically change to something else simply because someone went to a different page on Wikipedia - one or both articles should be properly reviewed to figure out why such is happening, and then work on fixing such. And of course, which I shouldn't have to say, all such changes I propose above should fit within guidelines, policies, etc, etc...

As for the rest, didn't we discuss the "environmental" part before? Also, as I believe we agreed upon before, in all such relevant sections, in some wording or another, "complex interplay" and each parameter, should be noted.

ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Centralized discussions

(edited for brevity as much as possible) Thank you for the reply as well as the above explanation which actually makes a great deal of sense as does the explanation given by Flyer, however, I don't believe Wikipedia guidelines allow this. Here are all the guidelines/policies in regards to using a centralized discussion.

(The following are in no particular order and my have added emphasis not in the original)

1) WP:CONADMIN "In some cases, disputes are personal or ideological rather than mere disagreements about content, and these may require the intervention of administrators or the community as a whole. Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:BLP) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process inappropriately."

2) Canvassing, sock puppetry, and meat puppetry. Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is fine – even encouraged – to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter. Using an alternative persona ("sock puppet", or "sock") to influence consensus is absolutely forbidden. Neutral, informative messages to Wikipedia noticeboards, WikiProjects, or editors are permitted; but actions that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to "stuff the ballot box" or otherwise compromise the consensus-building process are considered disruptive editing.

3) WP:CONLIMITED "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."

4) Wikipedia:Canvassing Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.

According to WP:Canvassing: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:

• The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion.
• A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions."

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion "Cent is generally used to draw attention to discussions regarding policies, guidelines or other matters that have a wide impact and on which a broad consensus is needed. Announcements, such as for ArbCom elections, etc, are generally done via the Watchlist notice or the Sitenotice. Discussions related to content, including use of infoboxes and templates within a specific topic area, are usually best advertised within the appropriate WikiProjects." - "Discussions listed on Cent are about matters that are significant enough to require a broad consensus. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidance on the appropriate way to gain attention. Some discussions may also be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment."

Appropriate

• Discussions on existing policies, guidelines and procedures
• Discussions on proposed policies, guidelines and procedures
• Discussions on matters that have a wide impact

Inappropriate

• Announcements – see Wikipedia:Community portal, MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, or MediaWiki:Sitenotice
• Content disputes – see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests
• Topic specific discussions – see Wikipedia:WikiProject
• Minor matters, housekeeping, article content discussions, or maintenance – see WP:Bold or Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.
• General ideas or proposals, reviving dead Projects, technical issues, or any other matters that would be better suited to Wikipedia:Village pump

I realize this is long and many may not take the time to read, So I apologise for the length.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide we may find some very useful information for "topic coordination". "If you just want to do a little bit of topic coordination because you want to co-ordinate across just a few pages, you might find the ideas in the following sections useful. (This is especially helpful when a task force is involved.)" Create a WikiProject Task Force or Work Group if one has not already been started. Use the Task Force/Work Group page to list tasks and projects within Wikipedia Guidelines, but still very similar to a centralized discussion. There is even a template!

Topic coordination on a talk page

Here's one example of how to go about a topic coordination on a talk page. There are no doubt other ways; if you come across something else that works well for you, feel free to document it here. The example below uses Tulips.

1. Post a note on the Talk:Tulip page (this being the primary page for the tulips articles), saying:
   1. Your goal: that you want to try to get at least a Start-class article on each of the different species of Tulip
   2. Your to-do list: list all the articles as intra-wiki links, and encourage people to put their name next to one that they're volunteering for, or have done. You will also want to see Wikipedia:To-do list
2. Do a little networking: link from the other talk pages back to your section of the main one, using Template:Topic co-ordination link

I note that the goal here is individual improvement of related articles and not to form a single consensus across articles. I would suggest contacting one of the main WikiProject Council editors such as User:John Carter who appears to be the most active.

_{(The above example may seem innappropriate. My apologies, however it is straight from the Project council guidelines and autogenerates this page name into the temple. No way to control that)} --Amadscientist (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, enough. If you have an issue with Flyer22 then take it to dispute resolution, do not clog up the talk page here with accusations and policy quotes. I assure you however you will not get very far as absolutely nothing has been done wrong.

I don't want to dwell on the guidelines, this is just fyi, but I'm not entirely sure you get the point of the concepts you quote as there clearly has been no canvassing and the "centralised discussion" concept as well as the Wikiproject Guide discuss issues the are more high level than simple content disputes over a couple of pages, as the WP:CENT page states itself. The most relevant thing above to content discussions is also a guideline you don't quote, the talk page guidelines, and particularly,

"Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums. This fragments discussion of the idea. Instead, start the discussion in one location, and, if needed, advertise that in other locations using a link. If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one location, and linking to it. Make sure you state clearly in edit summaries and on talk pages what you have done and why."

Besides all of this, the guidelines are not legal documents, they are there to provide guidance in building the encyclopaedia and resolving differences, not be used to start petty arguments. Note particularly the page gaming the system and its linked concepts. While we're at it the :tldr walls of text are getting disruptive, lets keep things concise. I hope this will be the end of the issue and the page can be returned to discussion of improving the articles. ChiZeroOne (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Besides not realizing that this discussion is about improving the article (actually several of them) you also just made an accusation of gaming the system? Was that really needed? A wall of text is meant to be just that...a wall. This was not, nor do I believe Flyers were. Some of us have no problem writing and reading extensive discussion....which is, by the way, pretty much required for collaboration and consensus, not to mention if an editor were to want to request help to resolve any dispute that may have arisen. Also...you can't ignore a rule to improve the article unless you know what it is. I assume that was your point about not being a "legal documents".--Amadscientist (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

.*Sigh*. No I did not accuse you of anything, I referred you to a page discussing how not to use policy and guidelines. But fine, if you want to continue I'm sure the admins will love you... ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

While it is great that you attempted to help, you failed to check either mine or Flyers talkpages to see that we do not have a problem with each other. The above post is in regards to another user's comment and was an attempt to help find the actual guidelines so that if there was an onging interest in topic coordination, a suggestion of a Task force or work group through the project seems to be the best route. Perhaps not, but it is a good suggestion. You actually did accuse me of a few things and just an FYI the canvassing guidelines are part of the overall issue of cross posting and relate to the others as being what policy and guidelines we have on the subject being discussed. You are not AGF. Your directing an editor to gaming the system may certainly be taken in the same light. Also, if you feel admin should be concerned please file at AN/I.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as shown in the #Is romance dead?! section below, Amadscientist and I made a truce. Amadscientist, what ChiZeroOne pointed to about "Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums." is exactly what I was doing. While I appreciate your pointing to other avenues that can be taken, I believe that I acted appropriately per what ChiZeroOne pointed to in that regard. But if you want to discuss this further, you are welcome to comment on my talk page about it as to not keep this mostly off-topic aspect of the discussion going on here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries Flyer. I have no idea where you have been posting and don't want you to assume I was referring to any behavior, just the things we were discussing. I am not at all worried about you.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that you were speaking of the "Causes of sexual orientation" postings, not my behavior in general, LOL. It's not often that I have to tackle centralizing discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Research is research, especially when cherry-picking

From the article: "research has shown that homosexuality is an example of normal variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects"

Always good to let people know how to think about an article right off the bat - saves the need for critical thinking. I'm guessing that ALL research says this; otherwise why would be in the summary part of the article - the part that should be the most balanced?

LOL wikipedia, the standards of your guardians are so very low. The same people who always wants to know who funds a study they don't like, are the first to be completely oblivious to the fact that almost all "unbiased" sex research is performed by people who severely diverge from the norm in their own sexuality and are desperate to change what is considered normal to include themselves.

All you have to do is look - will the person who erases this look into this? No, because that person both already knows the truth of this, but they don't want it to be, so they change words. But facts and the world never changes, whatever the perceptions of the proles. This place is run by our modern day Mr. Charrington's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.74.196 (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

How do I become a Wikipedia Guardian? It sounds like a cool title. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"...are the first to be completely oblivious to the fact that almost all "unbiased" sex research is performed by people who severely diverge from the norm in their own sexuality and are desperate to change what is considered normal to include themselves."

Funnily enough I actually agree with your main point though, Wikipedia should let the sources talk. ChiZeroOne (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Any constructive proposals or did you just feel the need for bickering? By the way, the sources are in agreement with the statement you criticize.--DVD-junkie | talk | 15:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why must other people come up with "constructive proposals", but not yourself? I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in what the editor was saying. And quote the sources providing evidence that sex researchers are all lgbt, thanks. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The text quotes the APA stating that "research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, rather than a normal and healthy sexual orientation" and that that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities." Since the text already corresponds to the sources why should I propose a change? By the way, I never stated that sex researchers are lgbt.--DVD-junkie | talk | 19:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Is romance dead?!

A recent edit removed the part about homosexuality involving a romantic as well as sexual attraction. I have no idea why this was done. It's quite easy to find reliable sources, particularly high-quality academic ones, which include romance and affection. [23] Does anyone oppose restoring it? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I restored it. It's a completely unjustified removal with no need to discuss. Teammm ^TM 21:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing on Wikipedia involving removal or addition of content "with no need to discuss". I have provided a clear reasoning and if there are sources, provide them. At the moment this is undue weight and original research.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This has once again been re-added without discussion and therefore I feel inclined to use another revert as no explanation has been offered or anything to demonstrate that romance should be used as an encyclopedic manner in describing sexuality. I do feel that there may well be some sources that can be found and its use in the article may be useful, but not in this manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "last revert". I'm perfectly willing to block someone for edit warring if they make less than 4 reverts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Just going to note that I've made a total of 0 reverts. It would be interesting to see a block for that! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, I would generally require at least one. But in case I wasn't clear, that wasn't directed at you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am really mystified as to why Amadscientist insists that homosexuality excludes "romantic attraction". Isn't this incontrovertible? – MrX 22:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course its not. One small mention from one web source[24] does not mean we add it to the lede. Sexuality is an erotic desire. [25] Introduction page ten.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Love, not romance is better used here. [26] Pg 10.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe that the American Psychological Association might be somewhat authoritative in this matter. By the way, citing a book written 45 years ago really doesn't lend much credence to your argument. – MrX

OK, true about the older reference, but that was only one. And no, the American Psychological Association is not the ONLY authority and should not be held as such.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct, it's not the only authority. However, it's more reliable than most, so we should follow WP:UNDUE by favoring it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with this interpretation of the guideline. Could you explain how you arrived at that?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE talks about the need to put reliable mainstream sources in the forefront, with some mention of minority sources and little to no mention of fringe sources. Later on that pageWikipedia:UNDUE#Good_research, it explicitly talks about scientific articles being more reliable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about favoring a source, just balance between mainsteam academic sources and lesser counter argument sources that should only be given due weight to their own main stream opinion, not whether one source is better than another and therefore should be favored. Strength of RS is based on a number of things and that source is not as strong as many that are available and may not have the same definition.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, authoritative sources on sexual orientation, such as the American Psychological Association (noted above) and the American Psychiatric Association (see here), include "romantic" when it comes to defining sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is discussed this way -- including romantic and/or sexual attraction -- in many academic sources. Flyer22 (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So then we just default to a definition supplied by the American Psychological Association's website and the American Psychiatric Association because they decided to include something that may or may not even be a sexual, erotic asscoation, desire or attraction? No...we don't. This is clearly undue weight just by adding the single descripter of Romantic. I even made the mistake of mentioning love, but that is still not an actual homosexual feeling men can love men and women can love women and not be at all homosexual. Look, the fact is romance has a meaning that is being id not being correctly applied in this manner and I do dispute that this is mainstream academic perception. That is what is important. Not whether or not one community within academia thinks this.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

We default to authoritative sources. Like I told you at #Section break: Somewhat off-topic, "What comes with 'a wider variety of sources' is a wide variety of personal opinions about sexual orientation from whatever author. Editors would cherry-pick their favorite authors, or favorite lines from whatever book, to support any stance they have on sexual orientation. This is why we are supposed to defer to authoritative bodies for this information." Adding the descriptor "romantic" is not undue in the least, per above. And as for romance being connected to sexual feelings... A lot of people report them as connected. When a person says they are "in love" with someone, it usually carries a sexual connotation with it. Otherwise, they'd just state that they love the person...as in "I love my mother." Most people don't state that they are "in love" with their mothers. Flyer22 (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are simply incorrect. We do not default to any single opinion. That is a little outrageous for Wikipedia. We have to balance the information IF there is indeed varying opinion and give it the weight it deserves in mainstream sources. But, again all we are discussing is one web source and a mention of another supposed source without a reference.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, you are incorrect. We go by authoritative sources when it comes to initially defining a topic that has varying views. Other views can be included, as long as they are given due weight. If it was a little outrageous for Wikipedia, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE wouldn't exist. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, it seems like you have studied etymology. If so I'm sure you know that etymology is not always accurate. There are things called misnomers that suggest they mean one thing and mean something else or mean what you think it means plus something else. A great example is antisemitism. Antisemitism literally means anti (against) semitic (middle eastern and sometimes asian origins). The word means discrimination, prejudice or hatred of Jewish people but you would thing it would include all semitic peoples. Homosexuality does include romantic attraction and I'm sure that there are hundreds of sources that could be found to support that. Homosexuality is not only an action (some debate it as an action at all) its a biological based predisposition towards a romantic or sexual attraction to members of one's own sex or gender.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the scientific community agrees with that. In fact I am sure they do not agree with it. I know it is the case with me...but I also know it is not the case with many I have known. We are seriously overlooking the information about bisexuality and how environment does effect such behavior and desire and the are hundreds of sources that discuss this and how even bisexuality can lead some (perhaps not a mjority, but some) bisexuals into a homosexual relationship.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I do not doubt that there are some that believe romanticism is indeed a part of homosexuality, however...I do doubt that this is mainstream in even the scientific community. This is really the first time I am seeing it weighted like this - literally before sexual behavior, erotic desire and attraction. I strongly feel, to even use it in the lede is undue weight to one portion of the scientific community. I am familiar with Byron, Shelly and whole issue of "Greek love' as a literary trope. I am familiar with the Ancient Greek society where the men would commonly write romantic poetry about the beauty of the Olympic athletes. But I would not be for stating this as the basis for use as a term in the lede on this article for a modern interpretaion. I also feel that more sources would certainly be needed to in the body of the article to strengthen such a claim as well as adding some balance to mainstream academic opinion which disgrees, which is lacking here.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Belief dosn't matter. If you go around asking 2,000 scientists "What it is called when 2 women or 2 men are romantically attracted to each other?" I guarantee you the VAST majority of them would say homosexuality. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality and for that matter all other sexual orientations (which is a misnomer) actually are not strictly about sex. They are about attraction and have nothing to do with sex.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Belief doesn't matter, sources do. Attraction is not sex. Agreed, but then romance is not either, but attraction is more an issue to be a homosexual than a "romantic" feeling. Romance is idealized...attraction is raw.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well the problem is that if you remove romance which you say has no relevance than you have to remove sex as well since as I said before sex despite the etymology is not what homosexuality is about. Are you advocating that stance?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not say it has no relevance, I said it was undue weight in the lede. If you take sex out you would be writing about homosapien. As I said, romance is an idealized thought process. It is not actual desire or attraction it is simply a way of looking at something. Romantic is painting a pretty picture of a less beautiful subject. And that seems to be what is happening here. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, this being "really the first time [you are] seeing it weighted like this - literally before sexual behavior, erotic desire and attraction." tells me that you haven't read on this subject as much as you think you have. Romantic attraction is also attraction, by the way, and, as I've stated, is tied to sexual attraction for many people. Even if you aren't American, how are you not familiar with sources such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association...or rather none of their statements on sexual orientation? Flyer22 (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you really just presume to state what level of research or experiance I myself believe to have? That takes a lot of nerve to be so incivil and then to assume or imply I am not American. Please discuss the contribution and not the contributer. That seems to be a major problem for you. You just cannot stop.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did presume it. And I asked you about it. It's not WP:UNCIVIL in the least. And going by the "Section break: Somewhat off-topic" discussion higher up, discussing the contributor instead of the contribution seems to be a major problem with you. Not me. You are the one who initially did it, and can't seem to stop doing it, and now can't handle that it was turned on you. Oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't. That is not accurate at all. The posts I am reading seem very much to be just parroting back a lot of what I say to filibuster.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you did (stating that is quite accurate), and I'm sure that others here would agree that you did. To state that you didn't is ludicrous. You started in about potential POV and motives that I may have (which I don't, by the way), and then went into asserting what you believe to be my POV/motives. You did that before I focused on your visiting Dennis Brown's talk page or questioned your level of knowledge on sexual orientation topics. Nothing to do with parroting or filibuster whatsoever. Flyer22 (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You are obviously not able to comprehend the discussion since what I said was "If you don't show even the mainstream objections or opposing opinion of whatever validity it may have then you would be pushing POV. Not that you are..." But now, I am having a hard time assuming good faith. At some point innacuracy begins to look like something with a purpose.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The only one who isn't comprehending what transpired between us is you. Like I stated, you went from implying that I may have potential POV and motives and then went into asserting what you believe to be my POV/motives. You stated, "You really do want this article to state as indisputable fact what you feel regardless of other mainstream opinion and are indeed pushing POV if you refuse to allow other mainstream opinion with due weight." Just because you added "if" does not change what you were clearly asserting about me. And it certainly does not negate that you were most assuredly focusing on the editor -- me -- not on any particular contribution. And you made yet another personal attack, this time about comprehension. So cut the crap and stop replying to me already. Flyer22 (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Pushing a POV is a contribution issue. Every contribution has an editor behind it. I have not singled you out by name to attack you. However you have used personal information gained by checking "contribution history" to cherry pick information to literally attack me with. I don't think you comprehend the discussion. I don't. If you do not wish me to reply to you, then stop posting things for me to reply to!--Amadscientist (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And you had no reason to think that I was/am pushing a personal POV. I've told you that we are supposed to defer to authoritative sources first and foremost when it comes to defining sexual orientation and why that is, and that doing so is not pushing a POV...except for pushing the POV of deferring to authoritative sources. This is done all the time at scientific articles, and other type of articles, which is why WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE exist. With a username with "scientist" in it, one would think you'd know that. The topic of sexual orientation is a scientific topic. You speak of comprehension, but all of this is something you clearly do not comprehend. And make no mistake about it, you attacked me first. You focused on the contributor due to your personal opinion that POV editing may be behind the editor's insistence of deferring to authoritative sources, which would need to go for others here as well, since they are also deferring to the authoritative sources while you are not. So stating that you didn't single me out by name is silliness. Implying that an editor has a specific POV just because you disagree with deferring to the authoritative sources that are being used is equally silly. Stating that I attacked you by stating that you should ask Dennis Brown a question is sillier. It's funny that you are so sure that I looked at your contribution history when I've already made it known that Dennis Brown and I are acquaintances. As you know, there is a such thing as a watchlist or just checking in on another Wikipedian's talk page from time to time, or often, without one. You don't think I comprehend the discussion. I don't think you do, as well as some other aspects of this topic. Goody. As for replying, keep it coming if you must. Flyer22 (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I struck my above comment out. Not because I don't still stand by most of it, especially the authoritative sources/non-POV aspect, but as part of a truce attempt with Amadscientist. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR… seriously. Amadscientist, you're assuming way too much based on the etymology. “Homosexual” is widely used to discuss same-sex relationships regardless of whether or not they have sex. (And then there's the whole debate about what “sex” is….) Even massresistance.org has the phrase “homosexual romance” on their web site. BTW, that interpretation of the word is also wrong; the Latin “sexus” refers to gender, not intercourse. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  02:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content from "Etimology" section

This edit removed the following sourced content from the page:

The word homosexual is a Greek and Latin hybrid with the first element derived from Greek ὁμός homos, 'same' (not related to the Latin homo, 'man', as in Homo sapiens), thus connoting sexual acts and affections between members of the same sex, including lesbianism.[1] Gay generally refers to male homosexuality, but may be used in a broader sense to refer to all LGBT people. In the context of sexuality, lesbian refers only to female homosexuality. The word "lesbian" is derived from the name of the Greek island Lesbos, where the poet Sappho wrote largely about her emotional relationships with young women.[2][3]

1. "Etymology of Homosexuality", University of Waterloo, retrieved 2007-09-07
2. Marguerite Johnson, Terry Ryan: Sexuality in Greek and Roman society and literature: a sourcebook p.4
3. "Lesbian | Define Lesbian at Dictionary.com". Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved 2010-08-24.

The edit summary was: "Removing some information with no references. Some dead links to disputed content and moved some to talkpage for discussion. Some rearranging and some deletion of content without references" (emphasis mine)

Is this vandalism?--В и к и T 22:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It would not be civil to answer that. Instead, I will suggest that it was a nonconstructive edit that should be undone. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The sourced information was merely moved to a more appropriate location. The deleted information was not RS. I wouldn't start edit warring at the suggestion of others.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No, a quick search confirms that information was lost. In particular, the Greek/Latin hybrid thing is gone, even though there is absolutely no controversy or doubt about it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Sappho and lesbian information is still there. Yes the Greek/Latin hybrid "thing" requires a source that is RS and the true origin is in the section.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's very, very easily sourced, to the point where it would have been better to find a citation instead of removing it. Here's a citation: http://books.google.com/books?id=WcyqvWfJnyYC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=homosexuality+greek+latin+hybrid&#v=onepage&q=homosexuality%20greek%20latin%20hybrid&f=false I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is best to read what the sources actually say about that...even in the source you just provided it makes it clear this is controversial and is a modern invention. It is not a true etymology. For one thing, it's original use was in German.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The term came to English from the original German, but the German was itself from a hybrid of Greek and Latin. We can mention the German part, but we don't need to. It serves to explain the awkward composite word (normal for German) but says nothing about the Greek and Latin roots. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's OR. We do need to mention the german part. The point is that if you state that the word is derived from Greek and Latin terms it gives the impression that the term has ancient origins like most words with such roots. The implication is innaccurate. And I am not even sure it can really be said that is how the term was derived by the German author.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's neither OR nor does it follow. Like "television", it's a modern word that weirdly combines Latin and Greek. This very combination shows its modernity. I don't particularly object to mentioning that it was first coined in German, but it's not particularly necessary, either. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It is necessary as it was the first use and it was not an english expression or term. We know how the word is derived and Wikipedia should not be used to make innaccurate claims. The controversy about the Latin/Greek origin is precisely why it is best not to use.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as this is of no consequence to the article at hand, I recommend removing the section entirely and leaving this to Wiktionary. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  23:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that if others agree.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree, based on the precedent of Television. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As always, one bad example does not justify another one. But in the case of television, the etymology is at least non-obvious and not directly descriptive. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  23:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd propose deleting the section when the information contained is proper and sourced. The only part in question here is the passage at the top of this discussion. All of that information is cited as well with sufficient sources, including the one added by I'm StillStanding (24/7). There's no controversy about the Latin/Greek origin besides what you've invented here and its original use in German is already explained in detail within the section. So, I'm not seeing where anything you two said is contentious material or left out. Teammm ^TM 05:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It was a suggested compromise. Its probably not going to happen but the source provided by the other editor shows a controversy. Did you read it? The fact is, the term is "Notorious" because it is a Greek/Latin modern hybrid with no actual Greek or Latin equivalent. Now...if we actally worded it in that manner along with the German origin I would be all for it, but the other editor wants to make this cut and dry when it is not.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "television" is well-known for being a Greek/Latin hybrid, but that doesn't mean there were TV's in ancient Rome. In short, your argument is based on a false premise and hold no weight. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not based on a false premise. Actually based on the very source you provided.

The word homosexuality (notoriously a Greek/Latin hybrid of modern invention) has no Greek or Latin equivalent. _{Marriage and Family in the Biblical World edited by Ken M. Campbell}

And there is a reason for that. Homosexuality is not a concept the ancient Greek or Romans knew or understood, but that is another subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There sure were a lot of things they didn't understand. In any case, your interpretation of this source is fringe and is attacking a straw man. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, that isn't an interpretation. Its actually paraphrased, and probably a little too closely to the source.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Article does not imply that ancient Greek or Romans used the term "Homosexuality". It only says uncontroversial fact that the word "Homosexuality" is derived from Greek "homos" and Latin "sexus". Do you dispute that?--В и к и T 11:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

^Buku asked my next question. I don't see how you interpret a word's derivation as "the word was used at that time". Teammm ^TM 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to give myself some time away from the discussion to be sure others had time to chime in, but I am glad Teamm came to the table and I appreciate the question asked by Buku. The history of the term "Homosexual" should be described with accuracy. And, while it currently has a good deal of the proper context the term modern is missing as well as some indication of it's "invention" and does indeed give the impression that the word itself has roots in the ancient languages being ascribed to it. This is false of course, and we need to be sure and make it clear that the Greek and Romans did not actually have any such word. This detail is important to be sure and seperate other such historic terms that do have their roots in these languages. The fact that the article does not state the modern invention is misleading for no reason when all sources are clear, yet, for somereason we have chosen to omit it believing that the following text will clarify. It actually does not as the text is still a little ambiguous. The prose states "The first known appearance..". This leads the reader to simply believe there may yet be earlier writings yet discovered. But we do know that the term was invented by a german author.[27][28][29][30][31] There is indeed some controversy surrounding the term. For one, while we do know when the term was coined, many still argue that the concept has been around for some time.[32] While this is true from at least the renaissance period, writings of the period have dealt with the concept of same sex love and attraction by using the terms "Greek love", "Socratic love" or "Plutonic love" as almost a code.[33] The importance of the developement of the modern term is an important part of LGBT studies and I feel we do a diservice by not including some portion of the accurate origins. I will leave this up to editors. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Bold rearrangement

A recent edit that rearranged the sections has been reverted as needing disussion and a formed consensus. What articles are these changes being based on and why. Why would etymology and history not be at the beginning?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Byelf2007 is always making those kinds of edits. See User talk:Byelf2007#Your editing, and other comments in other sections on his talk page about it. He almost always puts the etymology and history sections farther down. Perhaps you want to ask him to comment here about that? 216.119.145.148 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of criticism of homosexuality

I'm interested in discussing and laying out the various criticism of homosexuality. I see no such thing here. Can we get something going of the various philisophical, socioligical, and religious reasons to condemn it? I'm not here to promote any particular perspective. -- Frotz(talk) 08:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• The article where this is discussed is Societal attitudes toward homosexuality which was split off from the main article due to size. Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Would you consider a redirect of Criticism of homosexuality to Societal attitudes toward homosexuality appropriate? -- Frotz(talk) 10:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing ways to improve an article, NOT for discussing the topic of the article. Take that conversation elsewhere. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please... I'm trying to figure out how to satisfy someone who's looking for something that objectively presents criticism of homosexuality because plugging that phrase into the search box doesn't yield anything helpful. -- Frotz(talk) 23:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not a discussion of the subject alone but of the article itself as the discussion was about a criticism section in the article. However, it should be noted that the general rule of thumb is to not have a seperate section for criticism but to have such criticism spread out through the article in related sections, not lumped together. Adding a redirect would be POV in my opinion as the artilce you wish to redirect is not a criticism article but a summary of different attitudes to homosexuality, which in many cases is an accepted practice or not something you could call criticism.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Epigenetics

Should there be information included in the article with regards to epigenetics and homosexuality? The Quarterly Review of Biology by the University of Chicago has published a book stating a new theory on it.Ylsuomynona (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality as an orientation has in no definitive physiological research been proven as fact.

To classify homosexual preference as an "orientation," inferring a biological predisposition, is an error that needs to be corrected immediately. Yes, some might like to believe that one's sexual orientation is determined "in the genes," but there has been no substantiated research to date that holds up to a rigorous muster of this hypothesis.* A homosexual preference is no different than a bi-sexual preference or for that matter a heterosexual preference. While there is an innate [biological] drive to reproduce and nurture one's species, a sexual preference can be claimed by anyone as a preferred choice of sexual gratification, pleasure or leisure. It seems that social, cultural or religious taboos are the only arbiters of preferred sexual practices in societies that, for example, restrict or ban sexual behavior other than an accepted heterosexual (being most general here for argumentative purposes) norm.

If anyone thinks this idea is spot-on, or just nuts, please feel free to validate or forward material that substantiates either opinion.

Thanks,

Jantoine01 (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC) JJ Maumee OH

• HOMOSEXUALITY - An Analysis of Biological Theories of Causation

Dr . Tahir I jaz, M.D., Winnipeg, Canada

See WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Romantic, sexual attraction"

MrX, regarding this revert, I don't understand your reasoning. The wording that you reverted to -- "romantic, sexual attraction -- which is not the long-standing wording or the wording used by the sources, implies that "romantic" and "sexual" go hand in hand. While they often do, that of course is not always the case. You are thinking of "or" as exclusive. But the word "or" doesn't have to be exclusive. See WP:ANDOR. It is important to stress that, like the sources do, homosexuality may refer to romantic feelings, sexual feelings or sexual behavior. Not imply that either automatically comes with the other. I would have suggested we use "and/or," like the American Psychological Association does, and the lead used to do, but the WP:ANDOR guideline is why the combination "and/or" was removed from the lead some time ago. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The meaning I read from the current construct: "Homosexuality is romantic, sexual attraction or sexual activity between members of the same sex or gender." would seem to mean and/or, whereas I would read your version (or between each definition) to be exclusive or.

The guide states:

Where more than two possibilities are presented, from which a combination is to be selected, it is even less desirable to use and/or. With two possibilities, at least the intention is clear; but with more than two it may not be. Instead of x, y, and/or z, use an appropriate alternative, such as one or more of x, y, and z; some or all of x, y, and z.

Perhaps the lead sentence should read: "Homosexuality is any combination of romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual activity between members of the same sex or gender."

I think I agree with your intended meaning, but feel free to whack me with clue-by-four if I am still missing the point. - MrX 22:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

ETA: An early version of this sentence...

"Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender."

would be more clear as...

"Homosexuality is romantic or sexual, attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender."

meaning...

Homosexuality is romantic attraction and/or romantic behavior and/or sexual attraction and/or sexual behavior.

- MrX 23:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your feelings. I'm not fond of the WP:ANDOR guideline because of problems such as these. Sometimes, using "and/or" is simply needed. So I definitely understand how you and others could read "or" to only be exclusive, even though the links I pointed to above show that "or" should not be automatically thought of as exclusive, and I'm sure that most people will know that we mean any of the aspects can be exclusive or combined. I don't agree with "any combination of," however, because it's suggesting that none of them can exist alone.

I propose that we use your wording without "any combination of," since your proposal is clearer by having added "attraction" to "romantic," leaves out the extra "or," and since, as stated, the word "or" can be inclusive; there's no reason that readers should take it to mean that we are being exclusive. It's well known that homosexuality involves these three aspects and that these three aspects are often felt simultaneously. But if you feel that it is necessary to stress the combination possibility, we could do like the Sexual orientation article currently does, so that the line is as follows: "Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual activity—or some combination of these—between members of the same sex or gender."

I don't see how "Homosexuality is romantic or sexual, attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender." would be more clear. In that example, "attraction" is separated from "romantic or sexual" by a comma and is therefore ambiguous; "attraction" could mean anything by itself. Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that (1st) suggestion is an improvement, and sufficiently clear, so I have made the edit to the article. - MrX 23:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll go ahead and do this at the Heterosexuality and Bisexuality articles as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Cause section

At the beginning of the section it is stated that the main articles concerning the cause of homosexuality are Biology and sexual orientation and Environment and sexual orientation. My proposal is that we use the lead paragraphs of these two articles to make an introductory paragraph, or couple of paragraphs for this section. If there are no objections I will proceed.--Auró (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, that's pretty standard. Go for it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Evolution of homosexuality

I suggest a section on the evolution of homosexuality be included into the article. It is after all a seeming paradox: if homosexual people tend to have fewer children, why hasn't homosexuality been strongly selected against? There are many assumptions that go into this question, all of which I feel should be in the article, e.g.

• The idea that homosexuality can be strongly selected against assumes that homosexuality is genetic. This does appear to be so (see main article).
• The idea that homosexual people tend to have fewer children may not be true. Nonetheless from my searching it appears that although some homosexuals do have children, as a group homosexuals do indeed have fewer children.
• Maybe homosexuality is selected against but not strongly selected against, so it exists. This implies that homosexuality will eventually become extinct. This is addressed in some of the articles I've seen from cursory searches.

Possible sources:

• http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html
• http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html
• http://chronicle.com/article/The-Evolutionary-Mystery-of/135762/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banedon (talk • contribs) 06:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Haven't looked at those sources. Do any contemplate the scenario of homosexuals being part of an extended family, providing better care for children who are related but not directly their own? HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There're a whole heap of theories out there, such as the one you mentioned, as well as others such as the genes causing homosexuality providing some kind of competitive advantage similar to the way the sickle-cell allele protects against malaria. One of the articles I linked states that we simply don't know why homosexuality still exists. All that can (should) go into the main page.Banedon (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem the OP is having is that "genetic" is not the same as "hereditary". All sources indicate that the percentage of children of heterosexual parents who are gay is the same, with a negligible difference, as those of homosexual parent(s). Black Kite (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Evolution would have "bred out" Type 1 Diabetes, since these people would have been unable to have children without insulin replacement therapy, however diabetes, which we know may be inherited and familial, has survived the generations. Epigenetic factors most likely plays a huge role and will shed light on this matter as we begin to understand it in more detail. You may add this to the page, however both sides of this argument must be discussed. Otherwise your statement would be without a NPOV Sean Egan (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone keeps putting their personal opinions in here...

I've seen it in the past, and now as well. Who keeps doing this? Both sides need to be shown here guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.113.148 (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2013

Bbfbbfbbf115 (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC) The historical truth of love and marriage Cao Jing is a Chinese scholar and his On the Theory about the Belief of Love says that the true nature of marriage is a mechanism which controls the relationship between men and women, and marriage has no necessary relation with love, life, family and children. It also holds that marriage belongs to the controlling ethics and love belongs to the voluntary ethics. In ancient times, almost all the people in the world had arranged marriage and it emphasized that the ethics of marriage (controlling ethics) dominated all things about the relationship between men and women. For a long time, the ethics of love were removed under the influence of ancient ethics and became that “love is a preparation for marriage”. The logic is that love is a preparing process and sanctity can’t be got until the marriage. Actually love can produce sanctity itself if you wish. You can find that there are many descriptions about arranged marriage and no description about premarital love when you see the ancient ethics and Christian “Bible”. Arranged marriage happened in all the ancient Christians and later it had changed into the idea that “love is a preparation for marriage”. This idea had influenced the whole world, but it did not admit that love can produce sanctity and it also thought that love is just a selection process. Today the so-called marriage oath is actually the love oath which can be made before marriage, and sanctity can be produced similarly. If the true nature of marriage is about control, then the arranged marriage is perhaps the true face of marriage. Most of the control force had been weakened when arranged marriage obliterated. However, this phrase “arranged marriage” was invented by the modern people while the ancient people may think the marriage was naturally to be arranged.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RudolfRed (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources

• The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 97
• The Advocate, 12-28-93, p.40
• Love Undetectable, book by Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p. 107
• http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf
• http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/
• Sick Again? Psychiatrists Vote on Gays," Time, 20 February 1978, 102.
• http://www.slideshare.net/Heather_/america-homosexuality

Do you think that the sources above are strong enough and support the following paragraph? Can the paragraph added to the article? Thanks.

Psychologists opposed to the decision of APA saying that it is because of the political pressure from the organizations supporting homosexuality but not robust scientific evidences. The decision of APA came from the agreeing of only 32.7% of members (the others opposed or do not participate). Before, NGTF had sent 18,000 mails to homes of the APA members to persuade them. According to Bruce Voeller (the chairman of NGTF), the precious mails had made a difference. In 1977, 10,000 members of APA are surveyed by Times. The results showed that 69% believed that homosexuality is a disease, only 18% opposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mặt trời đỏ (talk • contribs) 15:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Just had a quick flick through and the obvious Narth source is not usable. They cannot be considered either reliable, neutral or factual in this area. I'll have a look at the others later. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, the source from Heather is not usable. Behavior Mental Health seems poisonous as well. I don't know what the other sources say. Teammm ^talk
_email 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the sourcing issues highlighted above, the copy is terribly written. "precious mails"? "Times" rather than Time? And "Times" surveyed them in the present tense? "saying that it is" rather than "said it was"? "because of the political pressure from the organizations supporting homosexuality" rather than "due to pro-gay lobbying"? —Tom Morris (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your considering. I am actually from Vietnamese wikipedia. We have arguments about the issues above. The paragraph above was translated by me from a paragraph in Vietnamese which is said to be cited from the sources above. If possible, would you give more clear explanation for not using NARTH, Behavior Mental Health and Heather as reliable sources so that I can use them to discuss there? I really appreciate your help. Mặt trời đỏ (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

NARTH has a serious anti-gay agenda and uses discredited and misrepresented research to further their cause, as well as supporting conversion therapy, and using "scientific" studies from members that aren't scientific as much as they are opinions from their own books. They also use Biblical sections as fact in place of scientific studies, which show otherwise. NARTH cannot be used as a reliable source for pretty much anything on Wikipedia. I would liken using them on Homosexuality to using the KKK website as a reliable source for the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King articles. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"Heather", whoever she is, claims that "California is known as a hotbed for freemason homosexual orgies". That sort of thing belongs on a conspiracy theory website not in an encyclopedia. That Vietnamese Wikipedia are using that as a source shows... well, I wouldn't want to break our civility policy. I mean, crikey, it starts with the word "LOL" in the first sentence. If this is a reliable source, I'm Liza Minnelli. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Recently, really really a lot of information opposing to homosexuality is added to the article vi:đồng tính luyến ái (homosexuality). Above is just one paragraph I extracted. I am actually not an expert in this field. Mặt trời đỏ (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on how Vietnamese Wikipedia works compared to English Wikipedia (the same i assumed), but neutrality and factual reliability of sources reins supreme here. To answer your earlier question - no, your addition is not neutral in wording or reliable in source. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, besides NARTH and Heather how do you comment about other sources? How are they not reliable?

Please give comments about the lobbying mentioned above. Why it should not be put in the article? Otherwise, I will put it in. Thanks. Mặt trời đỏ (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, the following saying that in the US, 32% homosexual are alcoholic compared to the average of 7%. The homosexual in Denmark has low life expectancy of 51 (man) and 56 (woman) while the general are 74 and 78 respectively. In Norway, it is 25 years lower than the average of the general population. That is because of the psychologic problem. Mặt trời đỏ (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• L. Fifield, J. Latham and C. Phillips, “Alcoholism in the Gay Community: The Price of Alienation, Isolation, and Oppression,” A Project of the Gay Community Service Center, Los Angeles

• J. H. Lowinson, et al., Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook, 3d ed. (Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1997

• http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007_docs/CameronHomosexualFootprint.pdf

Most (all?) reputable psychiatric associations would attribute that to a life of bullying, repression, ostracization within communities and rejection by the prevailing moralistic culture. But Wikipedia as an institution should not have a position on it either way, and only describe the commentary of others with appropriate weighting. Regardless, you're synthesising (which is also original research to suit your biased POV).Zythe (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is it synthesising? The sources of the facts are provided and not any conclusion is written. Mặt trời đỏ (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)