Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Most important Bible quote is missing

The Wikipedia page on homosexuality is not balanced, which is scientifically incorrect. One is flooded with arguments in favour but arguments against, for instance Bible quotes, are deliberately moved as far away, as many clicks away, as far out of sight as possible. Even the main Bible quote is missing, so people are not warned that homosexual behaviour can lead to death.

Although many people, even for instance the Conservapedia page, quote only the Bible verses

Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

people forget that St. Paul continues in stronger wording

Romans 1:28-31 In other words, since they would not consent to acknowledge God, God abandoned them to their unacceptable thoughts and indecent behaviour. And so now they are steeped in all sorts of injustice, rottenness, greed and malice; full of envy, murder, wrangling, treachery and spite, libellers, slanderers, enemies of God, rude, arrogant and boastful, enterprising in evil, rebellious to parents, without brains, honour, love or pity.

and that St. Paul ends with the strongest wording in the New Testament on homosexuality, the verdict of God on homosexual behaviour:

Romans 1:32 They are well aware of God's ordinance: that those who behave like this deserve to die -- yet they not only do it, but even applaud others who do the same.

(verses are from the New Jerusalem Bible at www.catholic.org) In my opinion however one should also bear in mind that the Bible forbids one to kill, but instructs us to love one another as we love ourselves. But one should keep in mind that God is master of life and death and He is allowed to kill, so we should not be surprised that homosexual behaviour ends up with getting HIV/Aids. Furthermore the people I see before me when reading these harsh verses are the people with homosexual behaviour that want to have nothing to do with God and who actively promote this kind of behaviour, not the people who want to reunite with God and are searching for a way out of their behaviour. But the lesson is that, unlike what many people are thinking, God condemns homosexuality in the New Testament, through the voice of St. Paul, apostle of Jesus Christ, as hard as in the Old Testament. The Bible and God are consistent on homosexuality. So perhaps the verses Romans 1:26-32, but at least the verse Romans 1:32, can be put in a frame in the Wikipedia page on homosexuality? Better be warned in time, than rue it too late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.195.175.99 (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You realize that Wikipedia does not exist to push the tenets of any particular religion? LadyofShalott 05:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia should not push for the tenets of evolution and atheism either, which are faiths also, of which homosexuality is an outcrop. If one separates church and state, God and devil, creationism and evolution, marriage and living together without being married, heterosexuality and homosexuality, whatever contradictions between the two you can find, one should balance the information of the two about a certain item, especially if the death of millions of people is concerned. It would be scientifically irresponsible to do otherwise and not to warn people on the main page of homosexuality in Wikipedia. There are two billion Christians and two billion Muslims in this world, let alone people of other faiths, whose faith says that homosexual behaviour leads to death, but do not know that, that need to be informed about the negative consequences also. Wikipedia is for and by everybody, not for and by people of one faith (atheism). Jgamleus (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Balance is a matter of what sources state not what any particular faith believes. We don't repeat or promote any faith, religion or ideaology. We summarize what reliable sources state. The above statement clearly shows that there is simply not enough time taken to look for sources and is simply original research. That is acceptable on the talkpage, but not the article itself. Dang....this is the hardest wikibreak i have ever tried to take.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A Wikipedia page should have a neutral point of view (NPOV) according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. So it should be balanced. Gods word is a reliable source for 2 billion christians, 2 billion muslims and millions of jews. And atheism is a faith. Wikipedia should not promote homosexuality/atheism/evolution or one faith, what it does, especially if a world epidemic is at stake. The last UN report on HIV/Aids, at http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/epidemiology/2012/gr2012/20121120_UNAIDS_Global_Report_2012_with_annexes_en.pdf warned in their State of the Epidemic "AIDS remains one of the world’s most serious health challenges". Warnings for homosexuality should be included on its main Wikipedia page. Hopefully this is accepted. Jgamleus (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also add that this article is based on the scientific study of homosexuality. It does not promote anything. Your niche may or may not be Religion and homosexuality or Christianity and homosexuality. Teammm ^talk
_email 05:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention The Bible and homosexuality, List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality, and Islam and homosexuality, among others. LadyofShalott 05:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If the study were scientific, it would warn for the dangers. And the power of Wikipedia consists of the fact that the world community contributes to the items, and that it is not based on the information of one scientific article alone. Jgamleus (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is no scientific study at all that 'warns' about homosexuality. It simply isn't neutral.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

All the pages mentioned are good pages, but they are subsections, of which the main conclusions should be mentioned on the main Wikipedia page on homosexuality, like in a scientfic report. What else is the use of having all those other pages? And when AIDS broke out in the 80's, people were warned that the group most affected is the group with homosexual contacts, especially the group with changing contacts. Taking in regard the words of the UN, with the chance on an epidemic, this aspect should be in any scientific report on the subject. And certainly in an objective Wikipedia page. Jgamleus (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

In Africa, the continent with the highest incidence of AIDS, it's a heterosexual disease. Drop your bigotry now. And do try to relieve your ignorance too. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Married homosexual here.... No worry of AIDS.... I'm not sure how you explain that when you consider same sex marriage to be whatever sort of abomination you want to call it. The logical fallacies you're stating shouldn't have a place on Wikipedia. Sean Egan (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Same sex marriage is when homosexuals demonstrate their desire to take the very old-fashioned and conservative step of committing to a lifetime partner, just like conservative heterosexuals. How radical of you! HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The article contains objective overviews/summaries of complex subsections that become very detailed. The details you mention, all the while not ultraprecise, are included in the HIV/AIDS article, as well as articles linked for further information. You cannot mention something here and then not be able to explain it, or leave out new discoveries in research. Everything cannot be included in this article, hence, there are more detailed articles on those subjects. I would see a doctor if you have trouble clicking, just saying. Teammm ^talk
_email 08:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You might also want to check out WP:CHRISTIANPOV Pass a Method talk 12:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

For background on what Teammm was talking about, see WP:SUMMARY. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I am one of the more active editors specifically dealing with Christianity around here, and, as I have said for years now on my user page, am a fairly committed Catholic. Having said that, I have to say that I probably disagree with Jgamleus on his contentions. First, I am far from sure that all Christians would necessarily take the condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible in quite the way he seems to take it. In fact, having reviewed reference sources on religion and Christianity, I can say that I am certain that at least a significant number of them don't take it quite the way he does. Also, for better or worse, as per our guidelines and policies, which include WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and others, this page is primarily supposed to relate to the broad topic of homosexuality itself, giving only proportional weight to various related topics. In general, this article should be constructed to be, basically, no longer than it should be according to wikipedia standards, and also to cover the topic in a comprehensive and NPOV way. In general, the best way to do that is to follow the lead regarding amount of weight of leading print and other professionally produced reference sources. If, for instance, the article in Encyclopedia Britannica gives more or less proportional weight to religious views on homosexuality than our main article does, then that would certainly be considered reasonable grounds for changing our content. But, as per WP:BURDEN, it is more or less up to the person who proposes that changes be made to produce the evidence to support his proposed changes, rather than demand of others that those others do the work for the person proposing the changes. I can try to check the various highly regarded reference works on this topic which do not have a clear inherent bias (such as, for instance, the Lutheran Cyclopedia or Catholic Encyclopedia, both of which pretty clearly indicate from their titles that they have a certain POV), but it might take a while, and I might honestly forget. If I don't respond in a week or two with findings, feel free to drop me a note and ask why. Alternatively, if someone else wants to check the most highly regarded independent reliable sources like Britannica in the interim, they should feel free to do so and indicate what they find there. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"Then Wikipedia should not push for the tenets of evolution and atheism either, which are faiths also, of which homosexuality is an outcrop." - That's a pretty outrageous and confident statement that has no basis in reality. No, evolution and atheism are not faiths. Faith means to believe in something you feel (or were told) is true despite a lack of evidence, or even in spite of evidence to the contrary. Evolution is born out of scientific proof - there is a fossil record that shows evolution, you can study DNA and find proof of evolution, you can even observe populations of animals and see evolution occur. Evolution is completely based on evidence and science - the very opposite of what "faith" means to Christian "conservatives." As for atheism that, too, is based on only believing things for which there is hard evidence. The fact is, there is absolutely no tangible proof that God exists. Any call to prove that God does not exist, is of course completely illogical because logic dictates that you cannot prove a negative. One of the ways Evangelical Christians and others have tried to wrap their faith-based thinking around a world that operates on facts, science, evidence, and results is to try to ram the square peg of science into the round hole that is their own world view. Despite this desperate attempt to change the world to suit pre-existing beliefs, evolution, atheism, etc still remain firmly in the camp of science and evidence and have nothing to do with faith. The fact that you bring it up here only serves as evidence that you want the wikipedia article to reflect what you already believe - before even examining the evidence - because your "faith" tells you what to think. Fortunately, Wikipedia has rules against pushing POV.Udibi (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this should be removed

"Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors"

There isn't a clear consensus regarding if homosexuality has to do with something biological or psychological (or both). Some researchers think that homosexuality is produced by our genes, others think that it's rather related to how we were raised, and psychoanalists say it isn't biological at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.207.13 (talk • contribs)

I would agree. For most of human history, very few homosexuals thought that they were somehow forced into having sexual relations with members of the same sex by some kind of physiological mandate. They admitted that they decided to pursue same-sex partners in the same way that heterosexuals decide to pursue partners, because of their emotions or because of what was deemed fashionable by society. It was around the time when the APA (which incidentally enough seems to be cited as a "neutral" source in the article) was assaulted by heterophobic groups demanding that homosexuality be no longer considered a disorder purely due to political pressures, rather than through scientific consensus. As this was not until the 20th century, it required violent threats to silence the researchers whose work indicated anything that might prove problematic to their political motives. By encouraging the publication of statistically flawed "science" (with such flaws as self-reporting of subjects' sexuality, rather than seeking a verifiable biological indicator, as well as non-random samples, such as obtaining information about prison inmates, who have little choice but to be exposed to same-sex relationships) and censoring research that contradicts it by ex post facto labeling of the researcher as biased in a position that was determined by them only after they became aware of the results of the study, they have managed to make anything near a medical understanding almost impossible. --107.212.21.56 (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The content that you think should be removed comes from a very reliable source, and is corroborated by other very reliable sources. Also, your second paragraph actually agrees with the quote in your first paragraph that you wish removed.

Homosexuality is not a choice. That is the general consensus view of mainstream medical science, as evidenced by an abundance of reliable sources. - MrX 22:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition to MrX's comment, please read WP:NOTFORUM. Discussion should focus on article improvement, not debating the subject. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Twins study where not all twins end up being gay if the other was gay should be there too. Only half of them are gay if their twin is gay btw. Just to show both sides of the argument, this seems very one sided. This seems a very one sided article and the general consensus is not that it is a not a choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.54.81 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What the general consensus among random people is, is of no consequence. The scientific consensus is what is stated in the article. polarscribe (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Additionally wikipedia doesn't try "to show both sides of the argument." Rather it relies upon WP:WEIGHT, with a preference to the mainstream scientific view, and it opposes a religious bias within its articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment on this, and others ignored the first IP (who commented on April 10th) as well (it wasn't until the second IP that MrX felt compelled to comment), but I'll go ahead and state the following: To both IPs, while it is true that scientists (most of them anyway) state that they don't know what causes sexual orientation (which is addressed in the Homosexuality article and was recently discussed at the Biology and sexual orientation article), scientists generally do not believe that sexual orientation is determined only by biology or only by environment. They generally believe that it's a complex combination of biological and environmental factors, which is pretty much what the current lead of the Homosexuality article states, and is similar to what the American Psychological Association states about the topic. Most scientists do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice (which I also recently stated at the Biology and sexual orientation article). Flyer22 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And to the second IP specifically, yes, engaging in same-sex sexual behavior (homosexuality as separate from sexual orientation) is a choice, just like engaging in opposite-sex sexual behavior (heterosexuality as separate from sexual orientation) is a choice. But, clearly, engaging in same-sex or opposite-sex sexual behavior is different than whether a person is actually gay or lesbian or heterosexual. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this should be renamed

The heading "Homosexual behavior in non-human animals" is an excerpt from the article Homosexual behavior in animals. If the main article doesn't need the odd sounding "non-human" part, then why does the header need it? Can I remove it or is there an objection to thanks? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean, although I also find use of the term "animals" to exclude humans a little jarring. I've just changed it to "Homosexual behavior in other animals", which I believe sidesteps both problems. garik (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I support Garik's change.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thanks guys! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact this should just match the original article, no need for the "other". If other editors thought it good enough in the main article, so should it be here. People shouldn't put their evolutionary views into their edits on this page. Just follow the proper grammar and keep the titles exactly the same. If the article title is changed, then follow that change. Discuss the appropriateness of the title on THAT article's talkpage. Colliric (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

With regard to your change of the title, I prefer Garik's change. The reason that there is no need for the Homosexual behavior in animals article to have non-human in its title is because, besides the fact that most people refer only to non-human animals as animals, the lead of that article (as it is now) makes clear that the article is about non-human animals. Use of the term animals without the term other, in cases such as the heading being discussed, implies that humans are not animals; and that is exactly why we do use other for a lot of Wikipedia articles now when titling a section that is about non-human animals, especially regarding medical or medical-related articles (articles within the WP:MED scope); see WP:MEDMOS. That stated, even though the topic of sexual orientation is a medical aspect, such as its relation to psychology and psychiatry, it is not a medical topic in the strict sense of medical, and WP:MEDMOS doesn't specifically address how to format articles about sexual orientation/sexualities/sexual preferences (whether they are considered normal sexualities or paraphilias). Not to mention, homosexuality is not only about sexual orientation (what is actually desired in the mind), but also about behavior (behavior not necessarily matching sexual orientation or sexual orientation identity). In other words, though I prefer Garik's change, I don't feel too strongly about not using other. Flyer22 (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I also saw that you changed the hatnote, and I don't feel too strongly about that either. Flyer22 (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I also think that in the context of this article Garik's edit makes more sense. It connects the subsection to the larger focus of the article. I'm not sure how people's "evolutionary views" comes into play in this case, since the scientific consensus is that humans ARE animals (and I don't think there exists a reliable source that contests that fact). Wikipedia edits with a preference to what the majority of scientists view as correct and is careful not to edit with a fringe bias.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Coffeepusher, when you were replying (we came close to having a WP:Edit conflict), I was just adding in (on to my initial comment about this above) that "using other is not about evolutionary views; it's about the fact that humans fall into the category of animal." But I decided to add that here after your comment instead. Flyer22 (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm confused by various points of Colliric's post. I don't see first of all why we should stick with the exact title of the other article here (is this WP policy that I'm unaware of?). I don't understand the point about not putting "evolutionary views" on this page; it's hardly a matter of opinion whether or not humans are animals. Nor do I understand the relevance of "just follow the proper grammar" (unless all that's meant is "stick to standard English grammar on Wikipedia", which seems beside the point given that no one's suggested anything non-standard). garik (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a preference to Garik's version, I'm going to change it back. However I am interested in hearing from Colliric as, like Garik, some things about his post confuse me and I expect that the confusion can be cleared up through some clarifying statements.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to argue, I agree with Flyer22's explanation. My point is however that the title that appearing diffrent to the page it links to is average grammar at best, especially because of the opening sentence of the section which immediatly began with the title as it is in the Article, as well as contained an unnessecery immediate second link to the same article, which I should have removed in my edit(but didn't). Garik's comment that he found it a little "jarring" appeared to me as if he was saying he disagreed with the title on a theoretical basis, which is inappropriate, as if he was allowing his own sensibilities(likes and dislikes) to affect his judgement. He, or I, probably should have changed that opening sentence to reflect the new title of the section, rather than repeat a second time the link to the article, as well as use the exact title of it. Instead I decided the other side of the coin, change the title again to reflect the opening sentence and also the article linked to in the "see also". Probably should have done the other one. If it hasn't already been done, I will do it now.Colliric (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact I've just rewritten it entirely, cut and paste jobs from other articles are unacceptable if they sound out of place, which that clearly did under the new title. I hope everyone is happy with it. Colliric (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you mean by grammar what I (or other linguists) mean by grammar, but that's by the by. And I think it's entirely reasonable to disagree with a title (and change it) on a theoretical basis. In any case, I liked your recent fixes and have further simplified the beginning of the section. garik (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Bailey and Zuk Paper

Here are some quotes from within the article [1]. No idea why the editor insists it's an abstract. This is from one section:

There is no lack of hypotheses for how same-sex sexual behavior might beadaptive,and these hypotheses will vary greatly among species (Table 2). However, evolutionary consequences of same-sex sexual behavior have received scant attention

This is from conclusion:

Researchers have begun to achieve a firmer grasp on

evolutionary explanations for the origin and maintenance of same-sex sexual behaviors. We advocate expanding the contexts in which same-sex sexual behavior is studied by exploring its evolutionary consequences. Same-sex inter- actions occur in an enormous variety of taxonomic groups, and both the mechanisms producing the behaviors and the outcomes of the behaviors can vary widely among and within species. Regardless of their proximate or evolution- ary origins, viewing these behaviors as potential selective agents in and of themselves, and studying their evolution- ary effects, would contribute insight into the general prin- ciples underlying phenomena such as cooperative

breeding, aggression, conflict and sexual selection.

Cavann (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Not Bailey and Zuk. I removed the section on Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab.

Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation."

See, now, why I think the abstract is being used as the source? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Look at the changes I am making. That is already in the article. I just moved it down and created another section. The new material I added was about Bailey and Zuk's 2009 paper. Cavann (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Now I see. I thought you added the Garcias stuff. I have no problem with your addition. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Graphic Images

Aren't some images in the history section too graphic [2] [3] and simplify sexual orientation to simple sexual acts? Cavann (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Also removed this image [4] as it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Cavann (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't censor based on being graphic. Many of the images have a consensus to be here, but I don't object to the removal of the image you showed or the other changes you made. they seem to be reasonable.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Amadscientists. Now consensus can be changed, but I agree that it shouldn't be changed based on the graphic nature of the pictures. I'm open to non-sexual portraits being added as well if you have any suggestions. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Offensive material goes over when removing images partly because they are offensive can be a valid rationale. Flyer22 (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality on the increase?

Is homosexuality on the increase? Or is it something that has been stable throughout our history? Not that any of this would make a difference to any agenda, because all facts can be twisted to suit anyone's beliefs, motives, or what-have-you. I'm just interested purely in the research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.202.28 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This page is for the improving of the article only. Try the Reference Desk. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit war: Asexuality and the term homosexuality

Recently an edit war has broken out and so i'm interrupting and hopefully ending it. Nathan, i prefer your wording. No offense Flyer22, but yours seems misleading to me. People are not gay if they have gay sex. They are gay if they identify as such and have an exclusive sexual or romantic attraction to only their own gender. Adding the part about sex just looks misleading. Opinions? ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sexual behavior is not the same as sexual attraction. Vague waving to sources in the article doesn't cut it. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

For reference, here are my edits on this matter:[5][6][7]. And here are Nathan's:[8][9]. It was on Nathan to apply WP:BRD. Being an administrator does not mean that he should have foregone it or reverted me for WP:Edit warring when he was also edit warring.

Moving on: Nathan accused me of putting in WP:Original research. I did not. What Nathan added is WP:Original research. And here's why it is: He added that asexuality is one of the four main categories of sexual orientation and that it is within the heterosexual–homosexual continuum. Like I stated, "asexuality is highly debated as a sexual orientation" and "it's not considered a main category of sexual orientation by researchers/is not listed within the heterosexual–homosexual continuum." This is shown by this source, this source (there is currently no website for this journal: "Asexuality gets more attention, but is it a sexual orientation?". Contemporary Sexuality 39 (11): 1, 4–5) and this source, taken from from the Asexuality article that I've significantly worked on. The fact that asexuality is not recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation by most researchers is also why it was heavily debated at Template talk:Sexual orientation and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality whether or not to keep it listed on that template (I was one of the ones who agreed to keep it listed on the template because it has gotten a lot more recognition in recent years and leaving the template without it suggests that a person must be sexually attracted to someone).

On the topic of homosexuality, I do not have to be told that "[p]eople are not gay if they have gay sex" and that "[s]exual behavior is not the same as sexual attraction," considering that I have stated some variation of that many times in Wikipedia discussions, as recently as this discussion, and off Wikipedia. Nathan Johnson and Jenova are confusing the term homosexual with the variation homosexuality. The term homosexual is used more so for sexual orientation, while the variation homosexuality is used more so to describe any same-sex sexual behavior. Even so, researchers often use the term homosexual to describe same-sexual behavior (such as "homosexual acts" between men), which is why they also apply the term to non-human animals. Like I stated at Talk:Environment and sexual orientation, "most scientists do not assign sexual orientation labels to non-human animals, except for when describing the behavior of those animals. See, for example, the "Applying the term homosexual to animals" section in the Homosexual behavior in animals article. Most scientists do not do this (except for, as I stated, describing behavior) because non-humans animals cannot communicate with humans in the same in-depth way that humans can, and most non-human animals cannot communicate with humans in any in-depth way at all. Therefore, assessing their sexual orientation, what goes on in their minds as opposed to their behavior (considering that sexual behavior does not always match up with one's sexual orientation), is very difficult." The American Psychological Association, an authoritative source on this topic, also defines homosexuality in terms of behavior in addition to attraction, and so do a good majority of sources in this article. That's why the lead made sure to define homosexuality in general terms first, and then to describe the sexual orientation aspect of it. That's why this article does not only discuss homosexuality in terms of the sexual orientation aspect (what goes in the mind). To keep the lead the way Nathan has it is to go against the majority of reliable sources on these topics.

Since this discussion would benefit from a sexologist weighing in on it, I will ask James Cantor to comment here on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read much of that yet but i can point out that Nathan is not an admin Flyer. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I confused the administrator matter, and have tweaked that portion of my comment above. And thank you for this discussion you had with Nathan Johnson, Jenova. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources on asexuality don't back up your claim. An opinion in a student newspaper is not a reliable source. That "journal" is not a reliable source. The book, I think, actually supports my claim.

Further, if you define sexuality as a spectrum from homosexual to heterosexual, by definition there is no such thing as asexuality.

I really don't care about the other thing. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I replied below. Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have reverted the edit that had removed mention of sexual activity from the lead sentence

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

  and that had changed the more descriptive wording

  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).

  to this wording

  Homosexuality is one of the four main categories of sexual orientation, along with asexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality.

  There has long been mention of sexual activity in the lead sentence, and it is appropriate that there be, since it is an integral part of what the term homosexuality refers to. The revised wording in the next paragraph appears to place undue weight on the controversial inclusion of asexuality as a fourth category of sexual orientation. It is appropriate that it be mentioned but not that it be given unqualified equal status in Wikipedia's voice, and the former wording seems satisfactory. Rivertorch (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Asexuality is not controversial unless homosexuality and bisexuality are also considered controversial. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources do support my claim that asexuality is highly debated as a sexual orientation. The journal, no matter that you disregard it as a reliable source (and no matter that I'm also not the one who added it to the Asexuality article), shows the debate among researchers. The Sex and Society source does not support your stance at all; it states: "Sexual orientations are typically thought of as being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Recently, however, some researchers have proposed that asexuality is potentially another sexual orientation." Keywords there are "typically thought of" and "potentially." The student newspaper source (which I also did not add to the Asexuality article) is used as a side source, and counts as a WP:Reliable source for showing that there is significant debate about whether or not to call asexuality a sexual orientation. Further, there are not a lot of great sources on the topic of asexuality, as a human sexual orientation and not as asexual reproduction, because scientific attention has focused so little on it. No authoritative scientific organization, such as the American Psychological Association (source linked above), lists asexuality as a sexual orientation. Most researchers simply do not discuss asexuality when speaking of sexual orientation. All of this makes you calling it one of the main sexual orientations WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Therefore, you should revert yourself at the Bisexuality article and at the Heterosexuality article. This edit you made to the Asexuality article, as if the Asexuality article is about homosexuality and as if homosexuality is significantly debated among researchers as being a sexual orientation, was completely in the wrong.

As for "if you define sexuality as a spectrum from homosexual to heterosexual, by definition there is no such thing as asexuality," that's not true. The heterosexual–homosexual continuum is about sexual orientation, not sexuality in general. And again, asexuality is highly debated as a sexual orientation. Further, a person can be gay or lesbian, for example, and still be asexual; this is because all sexual orientations (the ones recognized as sexual orientations by most experts in the fields of psychology and sexology) have a romantic aspect, and, as the Asexuality article notes, some asexuals experience romantic attraction and engage in solely romantic relationships. Instead of calling themselves heterosexual or homosexual (as in "a heterosexual asexual" or "a homosexual asexual"), for example, some of them have opted to call themselves heteromantic or homoromantic (others consider themselves "a heterosexual asexual" or "a homosexual asexual"). Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

My only addition to this discussion is a question: Why has the word "behavior" been changed to "activity" (as in 'sexual behavior' as used in the article leads on heterosexuality and bisexuality)? I would like to see the terms used consistent across all three. Teammm ^talk
_email 00:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Teammm. It got that way after the "Romantic, sexual attraction" discussion I had with MrX. MrX opted to use one of my proposed wordings without the use of "or some combination of these," and I never got around to applying "sexual activity" to the Heterosexuality article, and it doesn't work to use "sexual activity toward males and females" for the Bisexuality article...while it does work to use "sexual behavior toward males and females" for that article. I agree about consistency, which is why I applied some consistency to the Heterosexuality and Bisexuality articles after my discussion with MrX and is another reason why Nathan Johnson should revert himself at the Heterosexuality and Bisexuality articles or someone else should revert him. However, since "behavior" by itself is not as clear as "sexual behavior" because "behavior" can mean any type of behavior, I prefer that we use "sexual behavior." Whether we use "behavior," "sexual behavior" or "sexual activity," the WP:Pipelink for those words is the Human sexual activity article, with the latter two "terms" redirecting to that article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for informing me. Teammm ^talk
_email 01:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think asexual should be included. It's a lack of sexual attraction, while the other 3 is sexual attraction to a specific sex of person. CTF83! 01:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, Teammm.

Ctjf83, I was going to add some sources for Cavann's request for a source that asexuality is sometimes considered the fourth category, but without keeping Garik's "on the same continuum" wording because I'm not aware of any source that says "on the same continuum" with regard to asexuality. I'm not aware of any source that says "sometimes" with regard to asexuality being a sexual orientation either, but using "sometimes" is better than using what some editors will consider to be WP:Weasel wording by using "by some researchers." But now I'll wait and see what develops with regard to asexuality being mentioned in this article. Years ago, I wondered why the leads of the Sexual orientation, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles mention asexuality, considering that most people (researchers included) don't think of it when they think of sexual orientation, but that was also at a time when I was not as educated on the topic of asexuality as I am now (I've been far more educated on the main three sexual orientations for a long time). Now, however, I do think that mention of asexuality in the lead of the Sexual orientation article, not just the lower body of that article, is appropriate. Not so sure about mentioning it in the leads of the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. Flyer22 (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really my wording. Or at least the meaning wasn't mine even if some of the words were. I said "on the same continuum" because that's equivalent to what was there before: The previous wording, "Homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation ... within the heterosexual–homosexual continuum (with asexuality sometimes considered a fourth)", clearly implies that asexuality is on the same continuum as homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality. I'm making no comment as to whether that's a reasonable claim or not. My edit was purely stylistic. It was a poorly written sentence as it stood. garik (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As others have pointed out already, asexuality is not on a homosexuality/heterosexuality continuum. More to the point, the only reason for the awkward inclusion of asexuality in the lede seems to be to assert that it is a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is already inked in the lede and the question of whether or not asexuality is or is not considered a sexual orientation should be discussed there. I see no reason to introduce the subject of asexuality into this particular article, particularly if there is some question about what it is. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't plan on entering this discussion in a significant way, but I would agree with Delicious carbuncle. Asexuality should be in the sexual orientation article, not needed in the others. Teammm ^talk
_email 23:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As you know, it's already excluded from the Bisexuality article; it just needs to be excluded from the Heterosexuality article, for consistency if not anything else. Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, Teammm. And I went ahead and took care of the behavior/sexual behavior/sexual activity point we discussed above.[10][11][12][13] Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Outside view

Hi, folks. I’m sorry for my delay. I was away at the time Flyer asked for my input, and I am only now catching up. As for the issue itself, I think I appreciate both perspectives, and I suspect that these ideas are actually very close, and that most of the disagreement is about different RS’s using slightly different senses of these terms.

That is, there does exist a sense in which asexuality can be said to be a sexual orientation, and there exist writers (of various legitimacies) who insist so. There also exists a sense in which asexuality was what not what experts always had in mind when they made whatever statement about sexual orientation. (That is, some authors were using the phrase to mean “gay versus straight,” others to mean “gay/lesbian versus straight,” others to mean “homosexual vs bisexual vs. homosexual,” and still others who use still more complicated “grids” to refer to multidimentional models of sexual orientation.)

I do not believe there yet exists any consensus in the expert literature over this terminology. So, although I believe it is legitimate to mention asexuality in some discussions of sexual orientation, I don’t think WP articles should be write so as to presume it either.

I hope that’s a help. — James Cantor (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, James. Thanks for the outside view at my request. I'm not sure what you mean by "exists a sense in which asexuality was what not what experts always had in mind when they made whatever statement about sexual orientation." By that, do you mean that asexuality was excluded from being defined as a sexual orientation? I'm a little confused by that line and what you put in parentheses after it. Also, do you have anything to state about the term homosexual and its spelling variation homosexuality that I mentioned above? Your comments on that, how the terms (like heterosexual and heterosexuality) also sometimes refer to behavior only and don't always refer strictly to sexual orientation (in the sense of what goes on in the mind; the enduring attraction), may help others to better understand that aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I now understand what you mean by your second paragraph. I got confused by the use of "some authors were using the phrase" that you included in parentheses; my mind registered "the phrase" to mean "asexuality," which obviously didn't make sense, when you actually meant "sexual orientation." Flyer22 (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What is a continuum?

I have just reverted a phrase that said that asexuality may be 'on the same continuum' as heterosexual-bisexual-homosexual. I have no opinion, and no knowledge of the literature, regarding the status of asexual as a sexual orientation, but I have a science background and I do know what a continuum is. If anywhere, asexual stands on a different continuum, the other end of which may be labelled something like 'highly sexed'. If these two continua are placed at right angles, we may have a meaningful plane, with four sectors for highly active and mostly inactive homosexuals and heterosexuals respectively, with moderately driven bisexuals in the middle. However, I see that the original statement is lacking a source and has been challenged. This is the kind of muddle we get into when we try to create the science ourselves, rather than starting with reliable sources and letting them guide our encyclopedia writing, IMHO. --Nigelj (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You may have seen already, but this a part of the discussion immediately above this one, Nigel. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

In case I get blamed unduly (see above) for this particular wording, I'd like it to be recorded that I agree with you, Nigel. I can't see how asexuality can be considered to fall on this continuum. garik (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, Flyer, but I was trying only to pick off just one small aspect, rather than the bigger issue. Hi Garik, no, no one's blaming anyone ;-) I did think that the idea of asexuality being part of an independent variable might help with the 'four categories' debate, but it was pure WP:OR without a ref. I see the whole phrase has gone now anyway. --Nigelj (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The text about what causes sexual orientation in the lead

And yet here we are again. I might was as well start this discussion since Scientiom will likely continue to revert Cavann, Cavann will likely continue to revert Scientiom, and I will continue to revert any unsupported text by Scientiom that I know is unsuppported.

Like I stated here and further explained here in the edit history of the Homosexuality article, the lead was extensively worked out in the Religion POV in intro (RFC) and Causes of sexual orientation discussions. There was WP:CONSENSUS, which Scientiom was a part of, to use the "complex interplay" wording, similar to what we do for the Sexual orientation and Biology and sexual orientation articles where we state that scientists suggest that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, because they do indeed seem to generally believe that a variety of factors form sexual orientation, including non-biological factors (generally to a lesser degree with regard to non-biological factors). This is reflected by statements made by the American Psychological Association (which is the world's largest association of psychologists and more authoritative than the Royal College of Psychiatrists), by the American Academy of Pediatrics, by what these same organizations have stated in joint statements or what other scientific organizations have stated, and by sources in the Biology and sexual orientation and Environment and sexual orientation articles. Despite what Cavann stated at Scientiom's talk page, the belief that sexual orientation may be partially caused by non-biological factors is not WP:FRINGE. For example, the American Psychological Association states: "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; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." And the American Academy of Pediatrics states: "A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts."

While believing that parenting, sexual abuse or other adverse (hostile/harmful) life events influence sexual orientation is WP:FRINGE, those are not the only non-biological factors that may influence sexual orientation. In this extensive discussion I had with others at Talk:Biology and sexual orientation about how to word the lead of the Biology and sexual orientation article, I suggested that "it is best that we drop any mention about what research generally suggests about [causes of] sexual orientation, since research on sexual orientation is inconclusive, like the major scientific organizations state. Scientists generally favor biological models for the cause of sexual orientation, but they generally believe that sexual orientation is formed by a complex interplay of biological and social factors. So I feel that we should attribute the genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences' text to what scientists/researchers believe, which is also supported by the American Psychological Association source on the matter." There is WP:CONSENSUS, after recent extensive discussions at that talk page, to mention the non-biological factor aspect in the lead of that article. Like I pointed out there, biological models for sexual orientation are not always only biological. The "Exotic becomes erotic" theory, for example (which is a section in the Biology and sexual orientation article), includes a lot of social material because it's about how biology interacts with social aspects to form sexual orientation.

Because of the issues that keep coming up with mentioning in the lead of the Homosexuality article the topic of what causes sexual orientation, I have thought that we would be better off not mentioning the theorized causes in the lead of this article, and should rather leave that to the Biology and sexual orientation and Environment and sexual orientation articles, or to the other articles about what may cause sexual orientation (Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation, Mental roots of sexual orientation, Neuroscience and sexual orientation, Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation, Handedness and sexual orientation and Epigenetic theories of homosexuality), or simply to the lower portion of the article, to handle it. But then I remember that we mention it in the lead because too many people out there believe that homosexuality (the sexual orientation, not only the behavior) is a choice, and that mentioning this aspect in the lead satisfies WP:LEAD. Flyer22 (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I will copy and paste what I wrote to Scientiom's page.

"...but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors,[1][3] especially with regard to early uterine environment" is a stupid and incorrect way to word it. First of all, it gives undue weight to non-biological environmental factors. This is unsourced or fringe. Second of all, it is not clear if "especially with regard to early uterine environment" refers to environmental factors or biological factors or both. If it is referring to both, it ignores genetic factors. The avg reader would think environmental factors are parenting, so would assume it refers to biological factors. Again, this ignores genetic factors and still gives the impression that things like parenting may play a role. This is incorrect."Cavann (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Also genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences = biological, since by environmental influences, they primarily mean uterine environment. But when you word it like "biological and environmental", especially deleting what RC of Psychiatrists say, you give UNDUE weight to non-biological environmental reasons. Cavann (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

For record on this talk page, here is Scientiom's reply to Cavann: "I seem to have been misunderstood. I completely agree with your point, and fully agree on the point about the Royal College of Psychiatrists source. I was trying to make this clearer on the article, and will attempt to make clear the research pointing to biology in the article. Oh, and by the way, 'early uterine environment' = womb."

Regarding Cavann's comment to Scientiom, I'm confused by Cavann stating "so would assume it refers to biological factors." I state that because, from my experience, most people assume that "environmental factors" mean non-biological factors, and, before Cavann stated "so would assume it refers to biological factors," he similarly stated that "The avg reader would think environmental factors are parenting." As for the rest of Cavann's reply to Scientiom, my thoughts on that are covered by my reply above in this section. I don't have a lot more to state on this topic that wouldn't be redundant to that. Cavann has reverted Scientiom again, and one thing I agree with Cavann on regarding this matter is that inclusion of "especially with regard to the early uterine environment" is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and should remain excluded. The "especially with regard to the early uterine environment" wording was not a part of the WP:CONSENSUS version of the lead, which I made clear in the "Causes of sexual orientation" discussion (linked above) that took place on this talk page; also seen in that discussion is where I argue that the "especially with regard to the early uterine environment" wording is WP:SYNTHESIS.

Cavann, "genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" does not equal "only biological"; it does not because "uterine environment" is already covered by "hormonal," and, like I stated above, some biological models for sexual orientation include social factors. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not mean "biological factors" when using the wording "environmental influences" in the following statement: "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." It is even clearer that they don't mean that when tracing the statement to the source that they based that statement on, which was addressed in the aforementioned discussion at the Biology and sexual orientation talk page. As sources in the Environment and sexual orientation article show, "environmental influences" does not primarily mean "uterine environment." And, again, the American Psychological Association, which is the world's largest association of psychologists, is more authoritative than the Royal College of Psychiatrists; this can be confirmed by editors at WP:MED. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"The American Academy of Pediatrics does not mean "biological factors" when using the wording "environmental influences" in the following statement:" Source? I can't trace length discussions in other pages.

Environmental influences include biological factors, such as uterine environment (ie: hormonal environment). However, it is WP:SYNTHESIS to word it like "biological and environmental factors" because, then, you give UNDUE weight to non-biological environmental factors. This is also not sourced. And please don't point to other wiki articles, Wiki articles cannot be sources. And I don't have time to verify every source in Environment and sexual orientation. Cavann (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would you think that the American Academy of Pediatrics means "biological factors" when using the wording "environmental influences" in the aforementioned example? I've never seen anyone take it that way. For example, MrX, in the "Causes of sexual orientation" discussion (linked above) that took place on this talk page stated, "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." And like I replied when agreeing with him on that, "it is explicitly clear that these researchers don't only mean 'uterine environment' when they state 'environmental factors' or 'environmental influences' because they list 'hormonal' and 'environmental' separately; they do that 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." I already linked to the discussion (above) where the American Academy of Pediatrics source was dissected. Here is the link to that extensive discussion again. You can also trace the American Academy of Pediatrics "combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" statement to the source that they based that statement on by clicking on the reference number for that statement in the source.

I'm not sure why you believe that theoretical non-biological factors for the causes of sexual orientation are WP:FRINGE, but, per what I stated above about that, they are not....except for when asserting that parenting, sexual abuse or other adverse (hostile/harmful) life events influence sexual orientation. To call the other theorized non-biological factors fringe is to imply that there is consensus among scientists that sexual orientation is only caused by biology. As the American Psychological Association makes perfectly clear, there is not; non-biological aspects are still considered, and many scientists, as the American Psychological Association supports, believe that both nature and nurture, or, more accurately, biological and non-biological factors (just in case some people take "nurture" to only mean "parenting") play complex roles in the development of sexual orientation. The wording "environmental influences" with regard to sexual orientation does not always mean "biological factors," as, again, sources in the Environment and sexual orientation article make perfectly clear. You don't need to verify the sources in that article to know that; doing a simple Google search or Google Scholar search will show that "environmental influences" with regard to sexual orientation means either "non-biological influences" or "uterine environment," or both.

It is not WP:SYNTHESIS to use the wording "biological and environmental factors," nor is it WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to do so. It's not synthesis because the sources make it clear that many scientists believe that a combination of biological and non-biological factors form sexual orientation. And it's not undue weight to mention that sexual orientation may be partially caused by non-biological factors, because, like I just stated, "many scientists believe that a combination of biological and non-biological factors form sexual orientation." It's rare that scientists believe that sexual orientation is only caused by biology, which is why you don't see any authoritative scientific organization stating that it is. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists doesn't state that; it states "it would appear": "It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006)." And, as can be seen, it is basing that on two separate studies. It is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to make it seem as though the Royal College of Psychiatrists has the most authoritative and/or final say on that. I'm very familiar with that source because Scientiom has used it enough times to make it seem as though scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is only biological.

And as I am a very experienced Wikipedia editor, I am already very aware that we should not use Wikipedia as sources. I didn't point to Wikipedia articles as sources; I pointed to the sources used in those Wikipedia articles, and that is perfectly acceptable to do in a talk page discussion. Reading the past lengthy discussions, even if not all of them, where these sexual orientation matters were worked out, will help you or others understand where I, Scientiom or others are coming from on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"It's not synthesis because the sources make it clear that many scientists believe that a combination of biological and non-biological factors form sexual orientation" Source? Which scientists? Do they give equal weight to both? Also don't just come up with one study, when there are review papers and policy statements that suggest otherwise.

Also, can you be more concise please? Cavann (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Btw, given that you said this

It's rare that scientists believe that sexual orientation is only caused by biology, which is why you don't see any authoritative scientific organization stating that it is. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists doesn't state that; it states "it would appear": "It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006).

You are aware that uterine environment is a biological factor, right? Biological does not simply mean genetic.Cavann (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Cavann, for one example, do you not think that the American Psychological Association is speaking of scientists' beliefs all the way through when it states, "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."? That's not one study. And I would not rely on one study for such a statement. That is an authoritative scientific organization speaking. And, no, scientists generally don't give equal weight to both theoretical biological factors and theoretical non-biological factors. The American Academy of Pediatrics source is correct about scientists favoring biological models for the cause of sexual orientation; but, again, some biological models for sexual orientation include social factors.

As for being concise, yes, I am familiar with WP:Too long, didn't read. I am only lengthy in my responses when I feel that I need to be.

As for "uterine environment," I consider it clear that I am aware that "uterine environment" is a biological factor. I don't understand why you asked Scientiom if he is aware of that. Or why you have now asked me that now. Look above; for example, in my "21:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)" comment, I stated "genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" does not equal "only biological"; it does not because "uterine environment" is already covered by "hormonal." By that, I was/am saying that the American Academy of Pediatrics already covered biological factors by mentioning "genetic, hormonal." That means, like MrX also deduced, they don't mean "biological factors" when stating "environmental influences." There is no need to state "environmental influences" to mean "uterine environment" when "uterine environment" is already covered by "hormonal." It's also clear from the two archived discussions I linked to above that I am aware that "uterine environment" is a biological aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good. In any case, the possible ambiguities you pointed out is covered by "There is no consensus among scientists about the causes of why a person develops a particular sexual orientation". Cavann (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And I'd already stated that I don't much mind your rewrite. As noted above, what spurred on this discussion is that Scientiom completely (or seemingly completely) disagrees with your rewrite, no matter whether the previous version or the shuffled version. I mentioned in this edit summary that I think what he primarily disagrees with regarding your rewrite is that the lead now mentions the "no consensus" aspect and especially the "little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation" portion. Knowing how Scientiom is on the topic of sexual orientation, he hates any claim or implication that sexual orientation is a choice, even if mentioning that it may be a choice for a small number of people and that it's "little sense of choice" for those people. I don't buy that it's a choice in any way either (except for people deciding to engage in sexual behavior), but I'm not as bothered by mention of the choice view as Scientiom is. I'm sure that he'd rather you drop the "little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation" portion. We'll see when he returns. And to be clearer on the "uterine environment" aspect: When I stated that the Royal College of Psychiatrists does not say that sexual orientation is only caused by biology, I was not saying that they were claiming that "early uterine environment" is not a biological aspect. How one could even deduce that they are claiming that, given that they outright state that "early uterine environment" is biological in nature, is beyond me...unless the person has comprehension problems. I was instead emphasizing that the Royal College of Psychiatrists states "it would appear" and not "it is." Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not completely read your answers given their sheer size. More concise answers would make it more efficient to communicate and lead to less misunderstandings.Cavann (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Even when I know that I won't be concise because I feel that there is a lot I need to explain, I try to be concise. I often keep the idea of being concise in mind. To reiterate, I am only lengthy in my responses when I feel that I need to be. I will keep your take on the size of my comments in mind. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: Scientiom has continued his edit warring without discussion on this talk page about the material in question,[14][15][16][17] and despite being warned by Cavann yesterday for doing so. The reason that I assert that he is misrepresenting the Royal College of Psychiatrists source again is that it does not state that "parenting or early childhood experiences do not play a role in determining sexuality"; it states "there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences have any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation." In other words, they don't state "do not" or "does not" as though it is an absolute with regard to this; they state "no substantive evidence." Those phrasings have different meanings, which is obviously why Scientiom has resorted to changing the former. Further information about what scientists believe is higher in this section, of course. I have also extensively replied to Scientiom at my talk page about his editing. Flyer22 (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead Text - Confusing, contradictory, concluding without proper source

This discussion is started with my removal of the following, which has been reversed. "Moreover, there is "no substantive evidence" which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role."

My concern arose from the source having referenced the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. The wiki article itself states that the book is widely considered outdated and the sources of information in the book are questionable, where other studies have shown different results. Even if we were to suggest the source is acceptable, the lead has very contradictory or questionable conclusion it is making. Going from there's no consensus, to a suggestion that most experts agree that biology is the primary factor, to environment being no factor. Frankly I don't see why all of this must be placed in the lead when after noting there's no conclusive evidence, it can be left for the Cause section to discuss (and all three of these points are echoed in the causes anyway). The other cited references for causes should get just as much mention (environmental effects or gender fluidity for example) or none of them should be highlighted in the lead. As it stands, the article has a strong bias in supporting biological effects and severely downplays anything that suggests anything else.

One other thing I noticed is the article ends up citing animals at the end, when the article specifics states animal homosexuality is found on another page. Does this need to be posted as well? Sarstan (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Sarstan. For note of it here on this talk page, I point out that you are referring to this source by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. In the section immediately above this one, I've stated a lot about the lead with regard to biological and non-biological factors...and mentioned that source. I'd rather not go over a lot of that again at this time. But you can read that to see where I'm coming from on the matter. Your points above about this matter are valid. But I will reiterate here that while scientists generally state that they don't know what causes sexual orientation, they do, like one source in the lead states, appear to favor biological models for the cause of sexual orientation. However, like I also noted above, some biological models include social factors. Scientists also generally don't seem to believe that parenting, sexual abuse or other adverse (hostile/harmful) life events influence sexual orientation (the enduring sexual attraction as opposed to sexual behavior).

As for having an Other animals section, a lot of Wikipedia articles do that; see the Sections part of WP:MEDMOS, for example. It's generally done even if the WP:HATNOTE points out where the article about non-human aspects can be found. Such a section is included because it makes a more balanced article; it is also a form of WP:Summary style if an article exists for the non-human aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I admit, I didn't read through that, but I do see it was for a similar concern. The wording definitely seems to put a lid on the topic, even though that isn't quite what it says. In either case I'll see about providing a few sources toward environmental factors sometime in the near future (probably tomorrow) to try to give this topic a little more fairness in presentation. I noticed in the Causes section there is no mention of environmental factors overall, which I hope to rectify. This way it's providing an argument against what I had originally attempted to remove instead of simply removing it.

Sarstan (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You should learn the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour, and environment is not necessarily parenting before proceeding further. Cavann (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I don't plan on bothering with this page any longer. It's clear that unsourced biased statements made in offhand have more value than articles that cite studies. I'm not really sure why there needs to be consensus on showing that one statement made has an equally argued statement that disagrees. The last edit I made was allowing both views (which admittedly could be presented better), but as it stands, all mention of anything other than biological reasons has been wiped from the page. Would there be any point in putting up a NPOV tag? Sarstan (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your incoherent opinion about that "It's clear that unsourced biased statements made in offhand have more value than articles that cite studies" does not constitute a valid argument for a NPOV tag.Cavann (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarstan, I was clear with this edit and this edit about why I reverted your most recent edits to the article. Specifically regarding consensus, I mean that you made a controversial change to the lead that is better left discussed before being implemented unless applying the WP:Bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. And if it's not already clear, I do sympathize with your efforts on this matter.

Cavann, we really shouldn't be relying on a single study for this authoritative statement. In fact, per WP:MEDRS (which does apply to aspects of this article because this article is partly a psychology/psychiatric topic), review sources are preferred over primary sources. Secondary sources are generally preferred over primary sources throughout Wikipedia, per WP:Primary. Also, though I agreed with your clarification of what "shared environment" means, an argument can be made that we shouldn't clarify anything that isn't clear from the source. Since I don't yet have full access to that source, I can't see how they are using "shared environment." Maybe you do/can. It's true that with regard to a person being who they are (how they think and their behavior), "shared environment" usually means parenting influences. But I state "usually" in this case because, as this source (which isn't specifically about sexual orientation) states, "Of course, the 'shared environment' of behavior genetics should not be equated with the 'family environment' as it is commonly conceptualized in the social sciences, because the shared environment includes those factors from beyond the bounds of the family which contribute to sibling similarity (e.g., schools and neighborhoods)." That stated, I'm not interested in pressing any further on that sourcing matter. If that statement and source stay, they stay. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That specific study is inline with review studies, so it is not making an authoritative statement by itself. It's just there to provide more detail. I do have access to the article:

To study the sources of individual differences, we used univariate twin modeling based on contingency tables for same-sex sexual behavior between twins in MZ and DZ pairs. We tested a model where observed phenotypic variance was assumed to result from the sum of additive genetic effects, shared or familial environmental effects, and unique environmental effects. The model was fitted with maximum likelihood estimation using the Mx structural modeling program (Neale, 1999). Since same-sex behavior may have different etiology in men and women (Bailey et al., 2000), we included only same-sex twin pairs in the model-fitting analyses.......It has been suggested that individual differences in heterosexual and homosexual behavior result from unique environmental factors such as prenatal exposure to sex hormones, progressive maternal immunization to sex-specific proteins, or neurodevelopmental instability (Rahman, 2005). Although the unique environmental variance component also includes measurement error, the present results support the notion that the individual-specific environment does indeed influence sexual preference.

Cavann (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Violence against Gays and Lesbians

11.3 Violence against gays and lesbians heading seems to be misleading, it says very clearly in the FBI report "The term victim may refer to a person, business, institution, or society as a whole". Yet under this heading is the terse statement Sixty-one percent of these attacks were against gay men. It seems to imply that all of these crimes were against individual gay men, when it could have been a business or institution owned by a gay man or men, this is misleading or slanting the information given by the FBI. Then it goes on to inflame this misleading information by inserting the experience of the individual Matthew Shepard. This seems to be intentional misinformation given to misinform the general public who uses Wikipedia as a resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranleewright (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but see that as arguing semantics.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hardly peddy semantics, it would be the difference between attacking a individual gay male or attacking a car used in business by a gay male parked on the street with no one in it or around it, no gay male physically harmed in any way. I hardly can see that as semantics, can you explain your opinion? I would genuinely like to understand your thinking on this matter? Ranleewright (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, sematics: " the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, like words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotation.". In this argument you say that an auto owned by a gay man being vandalized is not violence to that person however, it has already been established that vandalism is violence, but in your argument you are saying the car is the victim and not the owner. As I say that appears to be arguing semantics (and not all that well, really).--Amadscientist (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Main article: Violence against LGBT people In the United States, the FBI reported that 15.6% of hate crimes reported to police in 2004 were based on perceived sexual orientation. Sixty-one percent of these attacks were against gay men.[247] The 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay student, is a notorious such incident in the U.S. This is a cut and past of the original, notice the statement in the last sentence, "is a notorious such incident", this implies that all the attacks were physically against individual gay men and is misleading, I would expect this kind of thing in a sensationalized news media reports, but on Wikipedia? Cut and past from that FBI report: 1 The term victim may refer to a person, business, institution, or society as a whole. For a fact the way this information is presented it is misleading and seems to be intentionally so. Ranleewright (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite. Why do you think the FBI source is the absolute authority on violence against the LGBT community and how does the other article even effect this article? Perhaps the other article requires cleanup. Another issue, just because they say a victim may be this, that or the other thing, is not actually saying that violence in the form of vandalism is not violence against the person. The reason is very simple. Even non gay community persons have had this argument and it is the consensus that vandalism is a form of violence against a person, group or religion (in the case of vandalizing key holes of churches). Also, please explain your reasoning as to why you feel this is intentional misleading as I am not seeing that at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What your posting is moot and argumentative, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The fact this part of the article has that information in it and we are not posting to each other about anything else. Your talking about the definition of hate crimes, that is not what we are referencing here. We are posting about the way this part of the article is written it is misleading people to believe sixty-one percent of these attacks are physical attacks against individual gay men, that definitely is not what the FBI report says. This whole article on homosexuals is so vague and misleading it needs to be blocked or removed until it is cleaned up and put in proper order. Ranleewright (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Now you are just making assumptions and trying to argue around the subject. There is no policy or guideline that requires an argument from another page or article be accepted on a related article. Consistency across articles is not required. I am not talking about hate crimes, although violence against the LGBT community or a religion may be such.

Your current perspective is off a little if you think you are going to remove this article over your own point of view.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

My major concerns with that section of the article are its brevity, and its shallowness in mentioning only the USA in what's supposed to be a global article. It's hardly worth arguing over that minor detail above when it's such a distorted world view anyway. If you really cared, you would be looking beyond the borders of the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Now there's a good point.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the original complaint. What makes you think that vandalism of a gay man's car, or damage to a gay man's business, doesn't count as an "attack on a gay man"? "Attack" doesn't mean strictly a physical assault. And the fact that we mention the worst example of an attack on a gay man, i.e. a murder, in no way implies that all hate crimes are physical assaults on the person. - htonl (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If the wording in the article was changed to "In the United States, the FBI reported that of hate crimes reported to police in 2004, 15.6% were based on perceived sexual orientation, with sixty-one percent of these being against gay men", then does that not sit well with both positions here, as well as making it clearer of what the 61% is a proportion of? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What your posting is moot and argumentative, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. This part of the article is trying to clearly mislead the public in the belief that 61 percent of these where physical attacks against individual gay men, the FBI report does not say that, this is a clear deception by whom I do not know because I do not know the original author. But it clearly needs to be edited for clarification or removed until it can be properly redone. As it stands it is misleading and false, again we are not posting about the definition of a hate crime, we are posting about the wording in this part of the article is completely misleading in what it says no matter how brief. The whole article has very little basis in scientific fact, it is more of a opinion piece, allot of they believe, they assume type of citations, very little based on established scientific fact. The facts of the report support attacks against male gay,person, business, institution, or society as a whole that is what that statistic of 61 percent applies to and then the murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay student is thrown in for good measure. You would expect this again from sensationalized news media reports not a unbiased encyclopedia as Wikipedia claims to be. Ranleewright (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you clearly stated who you are addressing, as 3 editors have posted since your last comment. It would also help if you didn't copy and paste your own posts, thus repeating yourself. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Like I posted, I do not know the original author of this part of the article, this part should be edited to say something like the 61 percent involved physical attacks, attacks against gay businesses or institutions or the homosexual society (community) as a whole. One of the most extreme physical attacks was the murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay student. With the proper references this would or something simular clear up the misleading information given in the original article about these separate events that are included in that statistic of 61 percent. Ranleewright (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The term "hate crime" covers all the different variants, and is the term used by the FBI. The figure of 61% refers to the proportion of sexual orientation-based hate crimes which were directed against gay men as opposed to other LGBT people; it is not referring to any other specific nature of the crimes. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I see you prefer to leave this part of the article misleading and basically a outright lie to those who do not dig deeper and do more research in the FBI report. This tells me this whole article is bogus, I have read over it closely and even the other references through out are in conflict with each other or misrepresented just like this part of the article in question. The report does refer to the specific nature of the crimes all the way through the report, it referenced what those percentages account for yet you wish to hide the truth. The part of the FBI report in question says plainly "The term victim may refer to a person, business, institution, or society as a whole." And is sited directly above the statistic given. Ranleewright (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Give numbered examples, if you can. Teammm ^talk
_email 00:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ranleewright: The FBI report states: "Of the total number of victims of single-bias incidents, 15.6 percent were attacked because of a sexual-orientation bias. The majority of those victims, 60.9 percent, were the objects of anti-male homosexual attitudes on the part of the offenders." If this information is rendered in the article as "In the United States, the FBI reported that of single-bias hate crimes reported to police in 2004, 15.6% of all victims were selected because of their sexual orientation, and of these, 60.9% were gay men", then that removes what I think is your complaint, namely the fine distinction between incidents and victims. And please do not cast slurs such as "you wish to hide the truth"; I am merely trying to understand your complaint. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Pale, if you feel there is a slight miscalculation from 61 percent to 60.9 percent (wow off by 0.1%) please feel free to correct that.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am going to be blunt, but not uncivil. You are absolutely attempting original research of your own. In other words, you are making it up. Period. Here is what you claim in your original post (bolding for emphasis): "11.3 Violence against gays and lesbians heading seems to be misleading, it says very clearly in the FBI report "The term victim may refer to a person, business, institution, or society as a whole". Yet under this heading is the terse statement Sixty-one percent of these attacks were against gay men."

1) That isn't in the report. It is a definition posted above the report and is separated clearly as information being supplied to help the reader. It is absolutely not a part of the actual reference, it just appears on the same page. Even if we assume that definition to be a part of the report, it doesn't make the header misleading as you are misleading us in this discussion by attempting to claim that definition as the having more meaning than it actually does. That definition is about "Hate Crimes" not about violence against the LGBT community specifically. Here is what it says:

Definition A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.

Your use of this to complain or accuse editors is off base and inaccurate. The claim of: "It seems to imply that all of these crimes were against individual gay men, when it could have been a business or institution owned by a gay man or men, this is misleading or slanting the information given by the FBI."" is bogus. Sorry, it is. IF we were discussing hate crimes it might be relevant. It would still not be accurate to what your claim is (that the implication is that a hate crime could have been committed against an inanimate object).

Point blank, you have not demonstrated that a problem exists, that anything needs adjusting or that there is any need to delete this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Very relevant every chart in that report has this "The term victim may refer to a person, business, institution, or society as a whole." this statement is referenced by number above the statistics on gay males. This is exactly what all the percentages in that report are based on to say anything else is misleading the public who will read this information on Wikipedia. Ranleewright (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The heading says clearly 11.3 Violence against gays and lesbians. Your making things up as you go in some kind of circular reasoning trying to prove a point without the facts in your favor. Ranleewright (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

IF we were discussing hate crimes it would still be relevant if that information in the report was used in and worded in the same way to mislead the public. Ranleewright (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you are trying to say now, but it is clear your original complaint is baseless However...I will admit that the header's mention of lesbians is currently inaccurate in that the content is about men. But that is probably because the section needs expansion, not ridicule of small issues like that, if this was your entire point.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me the issue here is representation of the source. If I understand them correctly, Ranleewright is arguing that the wording used in the article misrepresents the source by wrongly equating every recorded LGBT hate crime incident as an act of physical violence against an individual's body. I can appreciate this criticism, and have already made a couple of suggestions for rewording the text involved. Maybe a footnote could also be added after the use of "victims", explaining the FBI definition of that term. Perhaps the FBI report needs closer scrutiny, to study exactly what it means when using certain terms? Ironically, I think Ranleewright has been careless in their own phrasing with respect to interpreting other editors' motives, and this hasn't helped the discussion; I do not think anyone has wilfully tried to misrepresent the source, and to accuse other editors of doing so just polarises the discussion. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Shame, shame, shame using the same source of information in a different article reference burying, distancing it even further from the truth in the original FBI report, this is still hiding the truth, a misrepresentation of the truth. It falls / fails even further under the criticisms I gave before. The reference did not need to be changed, the wording in Violence against Gays and Lesbians with regard to the FBI reference in the main body of the article on Wikipedia was in need of change. I can clearly see the editors of this entry on Wikipedia are biased. I seem to be interpreting the editor's motives correctly, there have been ongoing misrepresentation / falsification of the statistics right to this point. You're already pre-polarised, this is evidently an ongoing plan / ploy / practice to misrepresent the truth by some on here in regard to this subject matter. As before until this whole article is cleaned up and starts representing the truth of the references and material used in an unbiased manner it has need of being blocked or removed from Wikipedia, all entries on Wikipedia and sub-categories that reference this need to be blocked or removed until it / they can be published in a unbiased manner, at this point the entry is completely useless as reference for the general public. Ranleewright (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Methodology from these reports do not change, you just have to dig deeper into the information presented notice:

Crimes against persons, property, or society The UCR Program’s data collection guidelines stipulate that a hate crime may involve multiple offenses, victims, and offenders within one incident; therefore, the Hate Crime Statistics Program is incident-based. According to UCR counting guidelines:

One offense is counted for each victim in crimes against persons. One offense is counted for each offense type in crimes against property. One offense is counted for each offense type in crimes against society. Victims In the UCR Program, the VICTIM of a hate crime can be an individual, a business, an institution, or society as a whole.

Ranleewright (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an article talk page. It is to be used to discuss improvements to the article. It is not to be used to accuse other editors of bias just because they don't all dance at your command. It has not been easy to understand what your complaint is, not least because your syntax is peculiar. Even so, I have so far made 3 suggestions for how to change the article to address your concerns, yet you have ignored all my suggestions, whilst at the same time casting slurs on the motives of editors who, maybe, just don't understand what you're so worked up about. Wikipedia works by achieving consensus. Here's a hint: people don't achieve consensus by slagging other people off. If you can't be bothered to comment on suggestions put forward for changing the sentence, why should other editors bother wasting time putting forward such suggestions? Get off your high horse. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This entry has been edited to be even more, distanced even further from the truth, it has been made completely useless, may as well delete it. The whole entry on Homosexuality let alone this part on violence is biased and misleading not neutral in anyway in regard to its presentation. It seems Wikipedia has become a sounding board for special interest groups to disseminate biased and misleading material to the general public. I have emailed a complaint to the volunteer monitors and may in the future write a detailed letter on these problems to the creators of this website. I hold forth no hope that this will be corrected or mitigated because this seems to be Wikipedia's purpose to spread biased and misleading material to the general public, even allowing pornographic material displaying sexual themes, relations and organs to underage children without restriction, this is illegal in every other form of media. I no longer see Wikipedia as a useful resource and will explain its being useless to those in my sphere of influence. [legal threat removed] also about the media on here of a pronographic nature, they have probably already heard it or seen it but it will drive home some people are interested in the truth. Ranleewright (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a discussion and you have not convinced other editors with the strength of your argument. Sorry. Also you seem to wish to create a chill effect with what may be perceived as legal threats.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I know it will be changed back, but the edit I made to the entry clears up the meaning of the percentages referenced in the FBI report, wither it is changed or not I no longer have comment on this entry, it would be useless to try to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranleewright (talk • contribs) 02:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority (96%) of the victims of these attacks are individuals. See here.--В и к и T 12:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I get 94% (1216 divided by 1293).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I've read the above discussion and the report again Ranleewright at ANI. I believe that Ranleewright has made some good points. However, the problem is his approach, particularly when he's challenged, is, to put it mildly, off-putting. That dilutes his arguments and causes editors, understandably, to react negatively. I have a suggestion as to how to change the language in the article to more closely hew to the source. Part of the problem is how much detail we want to go into in this article (I haven't looked at the main article). I'm going to start very conservatively (minimalistic) and then comment. Here is my proposed language:

In the United States, the FBI reported that 20.4% of hate crimes reported to law enforcement in 2011 were based on sexual orientation bias. 56.7% of the crimes were based on anti-male homosexual bias. 11.1% were based on anti-female hommosexual bias. 29.6% were based on anti-homosexual bias.

I changed police to law enforcement as the latter embraces other agencies besides the police, and it's what the report says. The report never uses the word "perceived", which actually in many contexts in the U.S. has a legal meaning; therefore, I've removed it. The report never says that 56.7% of the victimes were gay men. It says that the offender's motive was anti-male homosexual bias. Thus, the victim could have been a woman or straight. We just don't know, and we can't make it up. By wording it this way, we also avoid the fact that at least some of the victims were not people, as the report and accompanying tables state. I added a statistic for anti-female homosexual bias to be more balanced, and I added the second largest percentage, 29.6%, which is apparently based on anti-homosexual bias without regard to gender. I did not include anti-bisexual and anti-heterosexual bias because the percentages were tiny.

Whether we want to go into the person vs. organization victim distinction is kind of a separate discussion. That would be more of an expansion of what we have now, and we'd have to decide whether the fact that 6% of all victims are entities is significant enough to include. First, let's see if we can get a consensus for my suggested changes or if anyone wants to tweak what I wrote.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted post by obvious sock of blocked user Ranleewright.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a particular opinion on the text as written, but Bbb23, I strongly disagree with your claim that some of the victims were not people. Come again, please. Could you explain how there can be a "victim" if not a person who is targeted. As I recall, we have some consensus on exactly what constitutes violence in a number of articles based on the vandalism to personal property of churches after the Prop 8 election and protests. Now we are to alter that on this article to satisfy a new definition that a car is a victim? Seriously...are you kidding me here?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted post by obvious sock of blocked user Ranleewright.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That does not appear to make sense to me and just sounds like the same unqualified argument being made by another editor. Exactly what is it that concerns you about that reference in particular to make you feel that the victims in the entire article (of which this is but a summary here) are not an individual, a business, an institution, or society as a whole? How is that wording an issue exactly? As yet we have only been dealing with the summary, and not the entire article or subject. As I have said, we do have some consensus discussions on the subject of what is considered violence and I see no issue here with just who the victims are. And it isn't an inanimate object.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted post by obvious sock of blocked user Ranleewright.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I do understand the distinction between the definition of a violent act and a victim, what is being misconstrued and simply walked over in this discussion are the actual victims and just placating a disruptive editor is not a good enough reason to start parsing words here. That FBI report, in no way defines a victim as being an inanimate object or anything but what they list...PERIOD. There is no argument being made to suggest that the information is being misused or that the article and summary are misleading. The FBI does not define what a victim is for Wikipedia and I do not believe we must discuss using that definition for this article or any other.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Bbb23's proposal is a more accurate representation of the source than what has so far been in the article, though I would suggest a couple of minor tweaks so that it's more obvious on a first reading what the different percentages are referring to. I would word it thus (I've underlined my amendments):

In the United States, the FBI reported that 20.4% of hate crimes reported to law enforcement in 2011 were based on sexual orientation bias. 56.7% of these crimes were based on anti-male homosexual bias. 11.1% were based on anti-female homosexual bias. 29.6% were based on anti-homosexual bias without regard to gender.

I'm not sure it's necessary to break down the figures according to the different classifications of victim, though I suppose something straightforward like "94% of victims of these crimes were individuals, as opposed to businesses, institutions or society as a whole" puts it fairly simply, without getting bogged down in lots of different figures and definitions.

I also think the section title should perhaps be changed to "Hate crimes against LGBT people", rather than "Violence against...", seeing as that is the term used in the source, and it is a more encompassing term.

Finally, it is possible to think words need changing because such changes are seen to be more representative of the source, regardless of the disruptiveness of the editor who raised the issue. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

They are a few problems. First, if you were to change the title, you would in fact simply be creating a new section as the current section appears to be the summary of another article. I suggest, instead scrapping all of the current text and re-writing the summary to better summarize the information in the main article correctly. Getting bogged down in a discussion based on the arguments on a single disruptive editor only continues the disruption. I don't doubt the facts and figures PaleCloudedWhite, I doubt the need to make the changes you suggest now as there seems to be no real point. Bbb23 changes where not bad and if needed they can stand, but to narrow that sections topic's scope due to your own narrow interpretation of the sum of information on the article at this moment seems very inappropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with PCW's amendments to my language as being clearer. I also agree that PCW's proposed renaming of the section header is more descriptive of the content. Addressing Amadscientist's comments earlier about victims, if someone burgles a house (no one is home at the time), that may be a crime against property. You can think of the victim as the owner of the property, but it is not the same as, for example, when someone robs a person where the victim is present and his property taken away from him by force or threat (the usual distinction between burglary and robbery). Without looking at all the crimes involved and how the FBI counted and attributed the crimes we cannot know precisely what lines they drew. But that's not for us to decide anyway. We have to hew to the sources no matter what we may personally think.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me, that in this entire discussion the aim is to lower the scope of section from the information that is there. As I have said, I disagree with that for several reasons. Let me be clear, the section IS NOT about hate crimes. That scope is very narrow. It is about the history of violence to the LGBT community, not a recent piece of legislation that requires a specific "crime" be committed in a very specific manner. If you were to change the scope in the direction you want, Mathew Sheppard could not be mentioned as his death was not a hate crime that was ever brought before any court. It inspired the enactment of the legislation, but it wasn't technically a "hate crime" that was prosecuted. This would also leave out mention of any act of violence prior to the establishment o a US law. and that seems too US centric for this article. No, I think you should RFC this in a neutral manner to get a wider input of the community before any such change is made to this article. Bbb23, if you would like to continue to discuss this I would be interested in hearing exactly how you figure a "hate crime" (as is being described here) is victimless in regards to the LGBT society as a whole, or the individuals who were targets of the violence and exactly how you believe the FBI reference is the proper reference to use as an overarching source in this manner?--Amadscientist (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

My aim in this entire discussion has been simply to accurately represent the source being used, and I find that to be told that my aim is to "lower the scope" of the section personally insulting. FWIW, I'm a member of the LGBT 'community', albeit based in the UK where the history is different. I came to this discussion after Amadscientist posted a message on the LGBT Wikiproject's talk page, but yet again with respect to LGBT issues, I find myself in the position of feeling like I'm accused of being homophobic. I can't be arsed anymore. I'm taking the LGBT Wikiproject off my watchlist, and you can all carry on without my input. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If you get insulted by having your suggestion of changing the scope directly challenged because the suggestion does lower the scope or narrow it drastically and does seem inappropriate because it is a summary of an article I believe was split off or is still functioning as a main article elsewhere and have to flip out and scream accusations of homophobia...the project could probably do without you, but who am I to say? I tend to be a little more critical of overreaction. You're an editor on Wikipedia and you should have the maturity to handle the discussion. Where the hell do you get me saying anything about you at all? Just the contribution or proposal and I am equally critical of the suggestion or agreement by Bb23. You seriously think I am calling you homophobic? Well, I am not, did not and will not. Its a controversial article, we just blocked an editor, making legal threats and socking to disrupt the article. So I am not exactly in a mood to put up with what I do not understand. Forgive me if I am not just giving in to your proposal and still actively oppose it...that is how Wikipedia works.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@Amadscientist: would it be okay with you if we changed the text of the section (as proposed/amended) without changing the section header? The latter seems to be your biggest objection; you commented much earlier in this thread that you had no objection to the language, just to reducing the scope by altering the header. I'd like to change the article where there is no dispute. That way, if an RfC is needed, it would be more limited. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If this is the section you wish to update the article with:

In the United States, the FBI reported that 20.4% of hate crimes reported to law enforcement in 2011 were based on sexual orientation bias. 56.7% of these crimes were based on anti-male homosexual bias. 11.1% were based on anti-female homosexual bias. 29.6% were based on anti-homosexual bias without regard to gender.

Then no, I would have no problem with that as the beginning of a larger summary of the main article. I just feel strongly that the scope not change.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 03:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There were a couple of clarifications requested by PCW that I think are a good idea. I've bolded them in the box above. Still okay?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been four days with no objection, so I made the change to the article based on the language in the box.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see these posts pop up on my watch list but I don't have any objections to those bolded parts.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 17:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Mesopotamia

Rather one sided article. In actual fact there were laws in Ancient Mesopotamia making it a Criminal Offence to cast aspersions or spread rumors about another mans purported homosexuality, meaning that there was a degree of Social Stigma attached to homosexuality. In addition, Mesopotamian texts clearly state that to assume the role of a submissive was considered shameful, likewise it is implied that to engage in homosexuality for pleasure, rather than as an act of dominance or for religious ritual was equally unacceptable socially.

Mesopotamia was a complex region, with differing attitudes at different times, and differing cultures within the region also.

The points above were made in an edit, and reverted, even though they were formatted well, and more importantly were backed up by sourced material, quoting the Mesopotamians themselves. To me, that is POV Bias towards one argument, rather than presenting actual facts, or both sides of the place of Homosexuality in a complex culture.

The PRE ISLAMIC section does not make sense as such anyway, because it includes a section concerning Islamic Iran! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.27.206 (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, Assyria, Babylonia, Akkad and Sumer were not one big gay love in by any means! It's pretty clear homoerotic acts were not meant to be enjoyed, but were rather conducted as a ritualistic act to bring good luck from certain gods, or to show mastery over another man, but the section ignores all that. There's pro gay bias there, it shouldnt be anti gay though, but just state things as how they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You both can, of course, provide reliable, third party sources. Right? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Freud

I have removed the following text:

'Richard C. Friedman, in Male Homosexuality published in 1990, writing from a psychoanalytic perspective, argues that sexual desire begins later than the writings of Sigmund Freud indicate, not in infancy but between the ages of 5 and 10 and is not focused on a parent figure but on peers. As a consequence, he reasons, homosexual men are not abnormal, never having been sexually attracted to their mothers anyway.'

That passage, in addition to being flippant and poorly written, is unscholarly and inaccurate. It gives a totally misleading impression of Freud's views on homosexuality. Freud thought that all boys were sexually attracted to their mothers, and so, despite what the passage implies, would never have suggested that homosexual men were abnormal because they were attracted to their mothers (he did think they were abnormal, but for other reasons entirely). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Social constructionism

In the history section of this article, there is a lengthy paragraph on social constructionism, which starts this way:

"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."

I find the paragraph on "social constructionism" and "essentialism" to be very poorly written, misleading, and amateurish. It gives too much weight to the views of David M. Halperin, who is only one representative of the social constructionist school of thought. I suggest that the paragraph be completely rewritten, or better yet removed entirely if suitable replacement material can be found. Comments? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I can suggest some grammatical rearrangement, but as to essentialism and so on, I can't help:

There are two seemingly opposite positions regarding the nature and historic expression of homosexuality: a constructionist and an essentialist approach. Either social constructions result from the characteristics of social groups, or individuals are defined by their real essential natures, and social learned aspects are only secondary.

I hope I haven't altered what was said too much, just simplified the way it was said. Of course, by clarifying it like that, it might be clear to those who know either that there were errors there in the first place, or that I have introduced some. --Nigelj (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The reference to constructionism/essentialism was scattered in various places of the article, with no references. I used the work of Halperin, that I was reading, to produce equivalent information and put it in one single place. The change was proposed in the talk page, and a consensus was reached with Flyer22. I am sure that many editors whose native language is English are well capable of improving my constructions. Of course, if any one can add references, two or three will be better than one. As for the subject, I think it is sufficiently important as to do not suppress it.--Auró (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the article doesn't need some discussion of social constructionism and "essentialism"; obviously it does. Nor am I suggesting that the existing material be removed right away. It does need to at the very least be completely rewritten, and I'll be considering how best to do that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Continuous improvement is one of the Wikipedia aspects I better like. An other is neutrality. See that, in spite of Halperin's tendency to constructionism, the paragraph is fairly neutral, including the reference to Steven Epstein "middle of the road" position. I tried to obtain Epstein text, but was not able.--Auró (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel a little tempted to simply remove the paragraph sourced to Halperin, and replace it with an entirely different discussion of social constructionism - I could use Michael Ruse's article on homosexuality in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy as a source instead. However, I'm going to retain Halperin as a source. It should be reasonably simple to reword that paragraph into something coherent. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead

The lead notes that, "there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation." I suggest that this could be removed without loss to the article. This article is, after all, about homosexuality in general, not about Conversion therapy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

And stating that a common held belief (in many places) is unproven is not necessary to mention? Conversion therapy after all is based on changing sexuality and directly relevant to the topic. I think it's a good thing it's in the lede if it's mentioned in the article. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Jenova and it is actually one sentence: "Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation[1] and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation.[9]" Cavann (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There are many commonly held beliefs about homosexuality that the lead doesn't mention. Despite the apparently enlightened times we live in, there are probably rather many people who think that gay men are really women in men's bodies and that lesbians are really men in women's bodies, for example. The idea that gay people are all basically child molesters is also no doubt rather common. Yet the lead makes no effort to discredit such notions. I think one can reasonably ask, then, whether the criticism of conversion therapy in the lead is really necessary. Cavann is correct to note that there is one sentence, "Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation." The sentence is illogical, however, inasmuch as it implies that the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of conversion therapy depends on people feeling that their sexual orientations are unchosen. There is in fact no such connection. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Then reword it, don't delete it. There's enough reliable sources and studies to actually change it to: ****"...there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation since such treatments encourage discrimination and harm the patient both mentally and physically in some ways."

I think you're also misinterpreting the section Cavann quoted. It makes sense to me and reads well. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A sentence such as, ""Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation", is definitely problematic. It can easily be taken to imply that the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of conversion therapy depends on sexual orientation not being a choice. It makes no difference whether that is a "correct" interpretation or not: we shouldn't want things to be open to misinterpretation that way. I'd like to reword the relevant parts of the lead as follows: "Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation, but prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people (homophobia) have, however, been shown to cause significant psychological harm, and are especially damaging to children who are homosexual or bisexual." I'd be happy to use a slightly different wording if you can think of something better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cavann (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I like that wording. Better than mine ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. They're not saying the same thing. Jenova20's version clearly states that conversion therapies have been shown to be damaging, whereas FreeKnowledgeCreator's wording states that general homophobia is damaging, without explicit reference to the conversion therapies (although the connection is implied by virtue of proximity within the sentence). I think here it needs to be decided what the intended meaning is. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think FreeKnowledgeCreator's is more informative. Everything fits nicely and the sentence has no loose ends or contentious wording. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with anything that separates the two parts of the relevant sentence ("Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation") into different statements. I'll leave it to others to fine tune things. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Plato

The section on homosexuality in classical Europe states that, ' Plato praised its benefits in his early writings but in his late works proposed its prohibition. In the Symposium (182B-D), Plato equates acceptance of homosexuality with democracy, and its suppression with despotism, saying that homosexuality "is shameful to barbarians because of their despotic governments, just as philosophy and athletics are, since it is apparently not in best interests of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or physical unions, all of which love is particularly apt to produce" ' The part about Plato equating acceptance of homosexuality with democracy is supported by a reference (to John Boswell'S Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality) but it seems misleading. The speaker in the Symposium is Pausanias, and taking his views for Plato's is little different from saying that Shakespeare believed anything said by one of his characters. I'd recommend removing that passage. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Plato's Symposium is a philosophical work on love theory, built as a dialogue between several participants. It is quite clear that one can not say that the participant's stated opinions are the opinions of Plato. The question of homosexuality in Classical Greece is not simple, and subject to controversy. In fact the Symposium is a main text used by the participants in this controversy. My opinion is that the paragraph, as it is, is untenable, and it is better to suppress it as proposed by FreeKnowledgeCreator. The other possibility, to improve it, is not simple. There are a number of articles on this subject like Symposium (Plato), Greek love, Greek homosexuality, Greek Homosexuality (book), One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, Greek pederasty.--Auró(talk) 21:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Plato was not discussing homosexuality. Sorry, but that is a huge leap as the concept is actually relatively modern.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply

There are two problems with it. Firstly, its in brackets but it does not adhere to WP:MOSQUOTE since dusfunctional is not used in the references. Secondly, the sources cites wikipedia, which indicates it is a poor-quality source. Pass a Method talk 04:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

For what Pass a Method is referring to, since Pass a Method has started a vague talk page discussion (despite repeated suggestions to be more specific with regard to headings, etc., but especially headings), see this. I reverted you, Pass a Method, because, per WP:LEAD, that material belongs in the lead, plain and simple, no matter the sources; better sources can easily be found for it and you know that. If the sources were the problem for you, you would have removed that text and its sources from the article completely; you simply don't like it in the lead. You always move things from the lead that you don't like to some obscure or otherwise low key section in the article, no matter if the material is already located lower in the article (which should be the case for most lead material, per WP:LEAD). As for the quote marks, per WP:BADEMPHASIS, I don't agree with them either...but others have added them back and those quote marks can easily be removed. It is clear, per the extensive Religion POV in intro (RFC) discussion, why that material belongs in the lead; that is a significant and controversial view with regard to homosexuality, which has been addressed by research; to take away that material leaves the research material on that matter out of context. Why have scientists stated this about homosexuality? Because there is a widespread belief that homosexuality is unnatural; it's all lead material. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Update on this matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Content referencing and re-wording

Hi MrX, Thank you for your notes. I do not mean to cause any offense and if I have done so please accept my apology as it would have been totally unintentional. I apologize again as I did not see the reasons for the revert and I hope I now explain the reason why I am trying to add to the paragraph in question.

I feel what I am trying to say is not tangential since there is a statement that refers to Buddhism in this article and also refers to an “integral part of Buddhist monastic life”. Then it is within the context of the text to provide the balanced view of the Buddhist monastic code that must be followed by Monks and Nuns and laity including in Japan. This code is what is referenced from the Pali Canonical texts and prescribes the monastic life. This code is not my opinion, it is what Buddhist must follow to be called a Buddhist especially for those that live a monastic life. This code includes refraining from sexual intercourse and is relevant to any form of intercourse including sexual behavior between members of the same sex such as may be the case in homosexuality.

The generalized terms in the paragraph I am trying to add to, especially “integral part of ” and “This same-sex love culture” denotes that this is the normal, when in fact it is the reverse and such practices are not advocated. Such statements may mislead the reader if not balanced. To balance the text I provided the following source –

Wallace, Alan B. (2002), ‘The Spectrum of Buddhist Practice in the West’, Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia, Charles Prebish & Martin Baumann (eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Page 37, paragraph 2, lines 1 to 9 state:

‘Over the course of daily life, lay Theravada Buddhists may occasionally take the eight precepts for a period ranging from one day to a week, during which time they may stay in a temple and devote themselves to religious practices, including meditation and chanting. The eight precepts include the more common five lay precepts of refraining from (1) killing, (2) stealing, (3) false speech, (4) sexual misconduct, and (5) the use of intoxicants, in addition to the three precepts of refraining from (6) eating after midday, (7) enjoying worldly amusements, and (8) indulging in luxurious sleeping arrangements and sexual intercourse.’

Here, it is seen that when staying in a temple, similar to but less strict than observing monastic life, one must refrain from sexual intercourse. This is a strict code for Buddhists and is referenced from the Canonical texts.

I have been told that this citation is not reputed so I have found the following text that references the five and eight precepts directly from the Tipitaka (Canonical texts). The Tipitaka is the direct teaching from the Buddha that Buddhist Monks, Nuns and laity are required to adhere to be Buddhist.

The source is,

[1] Bodhi, B (1981), ‘Going for Refuge Taking the Precepts’, The Wheel Publication No. 282/284, Buddhist Publication Society.

This article can be accessed using the web version located at - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel282.html

Please note the following page, paragraph and line numbers refer to the pdf document version that can be found using Google scholar.

From this source, Page 26, paragraph 2, line 6 states that the “pañcasila”, also known as the five precepts includes the training rule, ‘(3) the training rule of abstaining from sexual misconduct;’

Page 26, Paragraph 3, states that this is one of the five precepts that forms a minimal ethical code that binds Buddhist laity. Here the term “sexual misconduct” means sexual relationships or conduct not within or before marriage.

On page 36, paragraph 5, lines 1 to 4 it states, ‘Beyond the five precepts Buddhism offers a higher code of moral discipline for the laity consisting of eight precepts (atthasila). This code of eight precepts is not entirely different in content from the fivefold code, but includes the five precepts with one significant revision. The revision comes in the third precept, where abstaining from sexual misconduct is changed to abstaining from incelibacy.’

This means that an un-ordained Buddhist who does not live in a monastery and lives an ordinary life, like you and me, and who observes the eight precepts must practice celibacy.

To reach this level an ordinary Buddhist must abide or live in what is known as the Three Refuges. To first enter into abiding by the three refuges, Page 2, Paragraph 1, lines 5 to 9 says that,

‘If one has sincerely become convinced of the truth of the Buddha's teaching, and wishes to follow the teaching, it is preferable, when possible, to conform to the prescribed way of going for refuge that has come down in the Buddhist tradition. This way is to receive the three refuges from a Bhikkhu’. A Bhikkhu is ‘a Buddhist monk who has taken full ordination and remains in good standing in the monastic Order.’

It is clear that to take the precept of celibacy, meaning to abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, one must first take the refuges from a Buddhist Monk that leads a monastic life in the monastic order. It is clear that for a Buddhist Monk or Nun to live a monastic life the Monk or Nun must also follow the precept of celibacy, otherwise the Monk or Nun would have broken this precept or code of conduct and would be required to disrobe and enter normal life.

It is clear from the referenced texts that what is integral to the Buddhist monastic life with any link to sexual relations is celibacy. This contradicts what is written in the paragraph that I am trying to balance. This also brings into question the documented evidence, paintings and literature that is stated in this paragraph.

Please review the following proposed addition to this paragraph,

“However, it may be argued that such documented evidence would have given rise to such paintings and literature. Further, it may be argued as to the authenticity of such literature that sought to document Buddhist and Samurai traditions. This assertion is supported by the Buddhist practice that advocates refraining from sexual misconduct in ordinary life and advocates a strict code of celibacy in monastic life.[1]” [1] Bodhi, B (1981), ‘Going for Refuge Taking the Precepts’, The Wheel Publication No. 282/284, Buddhist Publication Society.

If you like I can enter this as a separate paragraph that follows on. I would be grateful for your thoughts on this as I would not want to mislead the reader in anyway. I feel the article handles well what may be seen by some as sensitive, and I respect its content. This is why I want to give the reader as much information as possible so any question of misinformation does not arise. As recommended I will also begin look to start a new section on the article's Talk Page. However, I wanted to contact you directly before doing so. Sorry if I have written a lot on this, however, I wanted to explain what happened. I thank you for your time and consideration to this request. Tdmdb (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you would like to see something like this

Homosexuality in Japan, variously known as shudo or nanshoku has been documented for over one thousand years and was an integral part of Buddhist monastic life and the samurai tradition. This same-sex love culture gave rise to strong traditions of painting and literature documenting and celebrating such relationships. However, it may be argued that such documented evidence would have given rise to such paintings and literature. Further, it may be argued as to the authenticity of such literature that sought to document Buddhist and Samurai traditions. This assertion is supported by the Buddhist practice that advocates refraining from sexual misconduct in ordinary life and advocates a strict code of celibacy in monastic life.

What you are proposing seems like original research, and you seem to be the one doing the arguing. This is not permitted per WP:OR. You would need a reliable source that states "such documented evidence would have given rise to such paintings and literature" and a source that states "the authenticity of such literature that sought to document Buddhist and Samurai traditions is questioned by _______". The last sentence (above) seems to be your own conclusion. Also, where is the source that explicitly states that "same-sex love culture" = sexual misconduct?

Mind you, I'm not defending the existing paragraph that starts "Homosexuality in Japan, variously known as shudo or nanshoku..." since it is not source and I am not familiar with the subject. - MrX 04:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. Let me explain. The evidence I reference is from the Tipitaka (also termed the Tripitaka) and is not my original work, nor my opinion and, in this context, only an argument when referring to the paragraph we are discussing. The Tipitaka is the text that Buddhists use to guide their practice. Its importance is similar to the Bible in Christianity. The sources I reference, Bodhi (1981) and Wallace (2002) only translate the part of the Tipitaka referenced, the five and eight precepts. It is not their opinion either, only a translation. As stated prior, within the Tripitaka, monastic life includes the strict practice of celibacy – this is included in the eight precepts (Bodhi, 1981, page 37, paragraph 2, lines 1 to 9). This is in truth what is integral to monastic life. Thus it brings to question paintings and literature that reference any form of sexual connotation regarding Buddhist monastic life where celibacy must be adhered to, and this includes the use of the term “same-sex love culture”. I hope what I say is making sense and not causing any confusion or concern. I would also like to say that Buddhist monastic tradition is steeped in compassion and safe welfare of all human beings and all beings in general.

If I may suggest, the paragraph could be edited to say -

“Homosexuality in Japan, variously known as shudo or nanshoku has been documented for over one thousand years. This same-sex love culture gave rise to strong traditions of painting and literature documenting and celebrating such relationships.”

This means removing the part “and was an integral part of Buddhist monastic life and the samurai tradition.”

However, I am not in a position to comment on the authenticity of the terms “shudo” or “nanshoku”. If you say that you are not defending this paragraph, then that would mean its removal. I’m at a loss on how best to approach this edit. I would be grateful for any advice. May All be Well and Happy :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.189.182 (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(Apologies forgot to sign the previous comment)

Further, if this paragraph cannot be defended as it is not sourced then the content linked in this paragraph in direct reference to this articles subject matter must also be questioned for its validity and if it’s misleading the reader or not. I hope this paragraph’s author will express views as to why this paragraph should remain, be enhanced, changed or removed. Or would be grateful for others opinion to the same. I hope if an unfavourable decision is taken on this paragraph it does not offend its author or anyone else. I’m sure the author will understand and respect the evidence put forth in view of its current content. However, no offence to this paragraphs author or anyone else is intended. Any decision taken is only meant to inform the reader well with accurate information. With this objective, I suppose we need to put a time line for this edit. I suggest that we wait for further comments for, let’s say, seven more days. This takes us to 28th December 2013. After these seven days a decision will be acted on based on the evidence presented. I hope this is a fair and just way to approach to leave alone, edit or remove the paragraph in question. Respect to all, Happy Holidays, May All be Well and Happy :) Tdmdb (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Tdmdb do not complicate the uncomplicated. The present paragraph about homosexuality in Japan has no reference, so in fact it can be deleted.--Auró (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have removed it. If someone cares to research it and provide citations, perhaps it can be restored.- MrX 23:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Lesbian narratives and sexual orientation awareness

The "lesbian narratives" section should be cut back. Most of it is undue for this article. In particular, there is a very long paragraph about Shere Hite's research that ought to be cut back. The level of detail is clearly excessive: I don't believe more than one or two sentences about Hite's lesbian research would be justified. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Homoesexuality is a mental illness.

The article implies that it is not. The APA was infiltrated in the late 60s and early 70s by homosexual activists, and the APA was facing a huge amount of political pressure. So the APA erased homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses simply because of political reasons, when reason for it should have been based on SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS. Since the public is little if at all aware of this fact, homosexuality is becoming gradually more 'normal' in society; it's seen as an 'orientation' rather than a mental illness. Because of the politics, as far as I know, there have been no scientific tests to see whether homosexuality still falls into the criteria of being a mental illness or not.

On a more personal note, I suffer from a variety of mental health diagnoses... and they are all hell to live with. I can't work. It's destroying all my relationships. Yet I see 'gay pride' and things like that EVERYWHERE, PROMOTING a mental illness as something EMPOWERING... they're just fooling themselves... and for those of them who are NOT homosexual, bisexual, etc, SHAME ON THEM from promoting it as something that's okay when it causes the sufferer such distress (if that is the case, which it usually is; look at homosexual health-related statistics; for example, the average homosexual male won't live past 45 YEARS. THINK about that. My life span is shortened from my illnesses as well.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.228.83 (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This page is where we discuss improvements to the article, which must be based on reliable sources. You have provided no evidence of that kind. Please stop wasting your time and ours. HiLo48 (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

|}

There is no main article for male homosexuality

Although Wikipedia has an article about female homosexuality, it appears that there is no main article for male homosexuality.

"Male homosexuality", "male homosexuals", and "love between men" each redirect to Homosexuality, but "male homosexual", "gay men", and "gay man" each redirect to the article "Gay".

These aren't the only inconsistently-targeted redirects: several others are listed here and here.

I'm not sure which of these two articles would be the best target for these redirects. The terms "gay" and "homosexual" can either refer to male or female homosexuality, so I wouldn't consider either of them to be the main article. Would it be reasonable to create a new article for male homosexuality, since there's no main article for this topic? Jarble (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Where is the confusing part and is there a formula to choose which goes where? Teammm ^talk
_email 21:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no article on Wikipedia that is devoted to the topic of male homosexuality. If such an article existed, then it would be a reasonable target for these redirect pages. Jarble (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I was going to revert you on this, but you reverted yourself. And then you added it back. This topic was discussed at the Gay article talk page; see the Gay article vs. Lesbian article? discussion for why there is not an article exclusively about male homosexuality (other than Men who have sex with men and Down-low (sexual slang), which document sexual aspects of homosexual behavior between males). One thing is for certain -- we don't need any unnecessary WP:Content forking. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A content fork wouldn't be necessary at all: the relevant information could be moved from one article to another without duplicating any content. (A separate article isn't strictly necessary, either: it would be possible to create a section called "Male homosexuality" within an existing article, and then re-target the aforementioned redirects to that section.) Jarble (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

About that, duplication of material in articles is not necessarily a content fork...which WP:Content forking and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia make clear. Still, a lot of information about male homosexuality is relevant to this article; society has focused on male homosexuality far more than it has on female homosexuality and we therefore shouldn't reduce this article to the point that it barely focuses on male homosexuality.

Either way, see here that the IP in the aforementioned discussion took this matter to Wikipedia:Requested articles at my suggestion that he take it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. As for this tag you placed on the Gay article, you should clarify there on that talk page that the main discussion about this matter is being had here on the Homosexuality talk page. That stated, I don't see what you think should be cut from the Gay article; everything there is relevant to that article, and we don't need to significantly reduce that article or make it so that it (like I stated of the Homosexuality article) barely focuses on gay men. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Jarble, redirecting "Male homosexuality," "Gay male," "Gay men," etc. to the Male homosexuality section in the Human male sexuality article, as you have done, is not a good move. There's a lot more to gay men than their sexuality, and, like I stated here on my talk page (while echoing the sentiments of others), the Human male sexuality article is very much a mess because of a certain editor. You should let those redirects stay pointed to the Gay article or the Homosexuality article, until or unless a Male homosexuality article is ever created. Of course, they should consistently redirect to either the Gay article or to the Homosexuality article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Feel free to re-target these redirects to another article, then: I'm still not sure which target(s) would be suitable. Jarble (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Gender and fluidity section

I think that the 2004 study cited by this section (with no proper source, by the way; there's only a link to a newspaper article) has been taken completely out of context. The study cited is one made by Bailey and Chivers, that found that straight women's physical arousal was equal to all pornographic stimuli and unrelated to their subjective arousal (it's completely false, by the way, that lesbian women followed the same pattern, as this section claims; their pattern was very similar to that of men, possibly due to hormonal causes). The same phenomenon was found out by Chivers when presenting the straight women with images of bonobos mating. And the same has been found with rape cues (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/2/159.abstract) and with eye-pupil measurements (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0040256). In a nutshell, straight women respond physically (but NOT subjectively) to any sexual cue, even to rape and animal sex. The common hypothesis is that this is an evolutionary adjustment to diminish damage during unwilling sexual encounters. So, if anything, these studies should be placed in an article about sexual arousal, evolutionary sexuality or something similar. It simply doesn't have a place here, specially since this is something that affects neither lesbians nor bisexual women (as shown in the eye-pupil research). A better study for this article would be the one made by Adams, about homophobic and non-homophobic men being aroused by gay pornography, since it deals more directly with homosexual issues: http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.22.48.82 (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

~So do you want to get rid of the section on this page? or do you want to edit it? Perhaps removing "and it's more changeable over time" formt he last sentence? Or what? Kairos (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

What I meant is that citing that research in particular as basis for sexual fluidity is irresponsible, since the researchers themselves weren't completely sure of what their findings meant (the other section about sexual fluidity with mentions from the APA is fine though). That interpretation of the study was done by the journalist who wrote the newspaper article referenced, but not by the researchers. Moreover, it's likely an obsolete interpretation by now, being almost 10 years old. Later findings, such as those in the bonobo films, rape cues and eye pupil studies, all suppport the hypothesis of the "automatic response against rape", not the hypothesis of sexual fluidity (unless one wants to believe also that women are more likely than men to enjoy rape or engage in bestiality). The disconnection between physical and subjective arousal also points towards this direction. That's why I don't see this section has a proper place in this article. It should be either deleted, or moved to another article where it makes more sense, like some article about rape or evolutionary biology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.22.92.28 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2014

Both homosexuality as any other type of attraction, it's something we are born with or just arises at some point in our lives. This already makes it something completely natural.

Not done: You have made no edit request in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ", so it is unclear what you want added.
Furthermore, you have not cited any reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit reverted on evolution

I added the paragraph and link below.

A range of factors may maintain gay genes in a population, in the past gay people were under pressure to enter heterosexual marriage and reproduce. A small number of genes of predisposing to gayness may make a man attractive to women and improve parenting skills while the man remains heterosexual. Larger numbers of these genes may lead to gayness. Gay people may assist passing on their genes indirectly by helping nephews and nieces, younger brothers and sisters. The effect of genes for gayness on reproductive success is complex and varies between cultures. If one of a pair of identical twins is gay there is a 25% likelihood that the other will also be gay indicating there is a genetic component but genetics do not determine gayness totally in all cases.

This if from the BBC and the UK BBC is highly regarded for the accuracy of its reporting. User:Flyer22 reverted it. Frankly if Flyer disagrees with the BBC Flyer may need to research the topic. Perhaps Flyer needs to look to independent sources, not just sources approved by Bible Belt Christians. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The personal attack is way out of line and I would invite you to consider retracting it. Also, if your edit has been reverted, please gain consensus before re-adding, per WP:BRD.

The material is interesting, but would need some tightening up of the language to clarify how speculative this all is. Reliable as the BBC may be, I think we would need some academic sources to establish whether this section should be covered and how.--Trystan (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, while the BBC is fairly well regarded for its reporting of news, it actually has a relatively poor reputation for science reporting. Even if it were highly regarded in that respect, we should — as Trystan says — really be using more scholarly sources. Garik (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri, perhaps you need to look into my actual (extensive) history with this article and my history with WP:LGBT before you go suggesting that the messy presentation of yours I reverted here and here has anything to do with homophobia. Many at this site know that I am not homophobic in the least, just like many at this site know that homophobia is not even the least bit tolerated at this article...except for when relaying homophobic views in the article or letting a WP:Troll vent before WP:Hatting their venting. Also take the time to read WP:MEDRS; that guideline applies to biomedical aspects of this article, such as genes and how they may or may not influence sexual orientation, which editors like Jytdog and Randykitty, who are involved with articles such as Nature versus nurture, would tell you. Maybe you should look to the other wording in that section about genes to understand why I reverted you, see how that wording is clearly presented as theories and hypotheses instead of absolute fact. Or perhaps you should click on the Gay gene link, see where it redirects to, and how such information is presented there. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Holy cow User:Proxima Centauri you need to strike the personal attack. Way, way way out of line. Beyond way. With regard to the content, if I would have seen this I would have reverted the addition too. MEDRS absolutely applies to this discussion - BBC and other popular press are at the bottom of the list of allowable sources and as MEDRS says we should always reach for the best ones - that means reviews published in MEDLINE indexed journals. Especially for something loaded like this. And there is no way that Wikipedia should throw around a term like "gay genes" as loosely as the proposed content does, when no such gene has actually been identified. The content would also need to be way more carefully stated, with more nuance and less simple statements in the indicative. (Flyer22 you shouldn't get so defensive - there is no need to even bother defending against a personal attack that is so out of line)Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (striking as per Jenova Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC))

Although i agreed with the bulk of your comment, the personal attack is completely out of line and Flyer is well within his/her rights to be defensive, especially being the person it was aimed at. Said comment has not been struck or removed at this time and is a failure of AGF, a policy which is already ignored around LGBT editors when admin are involved. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

i hear you, sorry about that. struck. that said, I cannot react to your claim that AGF is "already ignored around LGBT editors when admin are involved" - I don't know what you are talking about but that sounds like an ugly ball of wax on several levels, that this is not the place to get into. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I think that Jenova was mainly replying to Proxima Centauri; there was no WP:Personal attack in your comment, after all. On a side note, for those that didn't know, I'm female. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

oh the woes of tracking threaded comments! anyway, i am sorry you were attacked, flyer. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Jytdog. Also, if Proxima Centauri does amend his statement, it is best to, like Wikipedia:TALK#Own comments advises, strike through it than to remove it...so that my and others' comments are not left a bit out of context. Flyer22 (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Another thing: I apologize to Proxima Centauri for not being as WP:Civil as I should have been when initially reverting him. I definitely see how "Actually research the topic before adding stuff like this in." likely ticked him off; such a statement would tick me off as well. Though I am tired of the inappropriate editing that goes on at Wikipedia, and I let my stress with regard editing this site and my personal issues at home frustrate me to the point that I sometimes make comments like that, it is no valid excuse for such commentary. Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality evolved at the group level

Homosexuality evolved at the group level because of the importance of aggression in males.

A group of people who only produce heterosexual males will have more social strife within it and splintering off because not all male persons could get a wife because most women prefer to be bred by only upper class(aggressive) males and upper class males monopolize all of the women. The social strife and splintering off of a group would make that group weaker and therefore easily destroyed by a group that is more cohesive.

A group of people who produce a greater percentage of homosexuals would have less social strife within it and less splintering off. Lower class males who are bisexual or gay can satisfy their sexual urges on other male persons rather than having to get a woman(which is much more difficult because a heterosexual male has to gain high status to impress a woman). A group that has homosexuals in it would be able to concentrate its aggression fully on outgroups and therefore can more easily destroy an all heterosexual group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.129.137 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use this talk page to expound on your theories. All material in the article needs to be properly sourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this change please

This recent change was reverted as not having a particular reasoning. It was quickly reverted with an explanation and a demand. Unfortunately there was far more that was reverted than simply removing "bolding". I have reverted again and wish to discuss why the link were removed as well as other claims by the reverting/deleting editor. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I made the change so then it would match the file...? I already explained to you why I made the revert, and really- I'm pretty livid that I have to explain it again! [18] --Prcc27 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Also, I was undoing the over-linking, I mean- there only needs to be one link for Men who have sex with men. There doesn't need to be a link for each time men who have sex with men appears in the key. Furthermore, I was reverting myself to fix some errors I may have made. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey...either you use the talk page when your edits are challenged and not be disruptive or just tell us what the heck you are doing in the edit summary so we don't have to research the whole thing and create more work for others. I accept your explanation. This is how Wikipedia works. We discuss edits when they are challenged so that the challenging editor understands your intent. Thank you and happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I did eventually explain what I was doing in the edit summary, after you reverted me. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Article information is biased toward immorality

Hello,

If Wikipedia is supposed to be an open information source, then it should carry opposing (and perhaps really true) vantage points. This article is biased TOWARD immorality, homosexuality.

One point in the article states that gay parents, psychologically, are equivalent to heterosexual parents. This is patently false and biased. Yes, a source is cited, but what about also including opposing sources? These sources would reveal that heterosexual parents are the only ones qualified to raise kids with gender clarity. In other words, boys are boys and girls are girls. Boys do not act like girls and girls do not act like boys…when they are emotionally and psychologically healthy. That being said, the emotionally and psychologically unhealthy cannot recognize this of themselves when they look only to themselves.

All in all this article is very biased and is not a good example at all of a fair handling of a subject. What can Wikipedia do to alleviate this situation?

Blessings,

173.247.65.40 (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Howdy,

Wikipedia operates based on certain principles. Please see our policy on what information is included. Since this is an encyclopedia we try and present the information as it is reflected in the reliable sources available. Some people feel like their point of view is not represented, in which case we ask them to come up with reliable sources for inclusion. Also our principle of neutral point of view doesn't include the idea that for every point made there must be a rebuttal, that would violate WP:WEIGHT. We also favor the current scientific view over alternative views. I hope this helps, please feel free to bring sources here and we can see if they can be included. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

How can you classify the viewpoint as "immoral"? The fact that you consider a non-homophobic point of view as "immoral" itself shows a biased point of view on your part. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a religious or theological e-book. Information here has to be supported by scientifically sound references. --115.69.240.200 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your position is clearly homophobic. If you can back-up your claims by scientific references, then they may be considered for inclusion in the article. But the fact is, there are no scientific evidences to prove that homosexual parents are psychologically, or otherwise, not equivalent to heterosexual parents. (If there are, provide them here. And they must be scientific, and not religious, in nature, to merit as valid references for an online encyclopedia. References that simply point out the positions of religious organisations and individuals can only be used to support the information that is clearly marked as the "religious viewpoint" or the "homophobic viewpoint". They can not be used to support the general view outlined in the article's introduction, etc.) And your statement of "boys are boys and girls are girls" just does not prove anything. You say that "boys do not act like girls and girls do not act like boys when they are emotionally and psychologically healthy", but how can you single-handedly decide who is "emotionally and psychologically healthy", and who is not? Only experts in psychology and medicine (and not religious authorities) have the right to decide on these matters. Also, the case of "boys who act like girls" or "girls who act like boys" will be cases of "sexual identity", which is clearly different from "sexuality". A homosexual man with the sexual identity of a man would be masculine, and not feminine (and vice-versa). --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Homosexual as an offensive term

I'm not sure if this is in the article, and if it is I'm sorry that I didn't see it, but maybe it should be mentioned somewhere that many gay people find the word homosexual offensive. Several major news organizations, as well as GLAAD also feels this way as evidenced by this link GLAAD Media Reference Guide, so I know I am not the only one. I would make the edit myself, I am just not sure where in the article this would go, if it isn't already in the article and is appropriate to be included.

Obviously this is just my own opinion but when I hear the word homosexual or am referred to as such, it makes me feel like I am being diagnosed with a medical condition and not describing an innate characteristic of my personality. Clearly it is not on the same level as the word fag or anything like that and I would much rather someone use the word homosexual than fag or faggot or any other slur, though any word can be turned into a slur, even gay, just by the tone of someone's voice.

Thanks for listening,

-Fred Fjf1085 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

do you have a reliable source for this and where would you suggest putting this edit?Coffeepusher (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

GLAAD counts as a WP:Reliable source with regard to reporting that some LGBT people feel that the term homosexual is offensive (not so much the term homosexuality, however, which is more so about any same-sex sexual behavior instead of being too focused on the homosexual sexual orientation). The offensive aspect of the term homosexual has been discussed at WP:LGBT; for example, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 47#Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles; in that first discussion, there is WP:Consensus that using the term homosexual as a noun is offensive to many LGBT people and should generally be avoided...but that use of that term with regard to science articles such the Homosexuality article is appropriate depending on the context (such as stating "homosexual people" because the source does, because it serves to better contrast the term heterosexual than "gay men and lesbians" does or because it's quicker than stating "gay men and lesbians"). Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Same sex unmarried partner households

This "category" of people may very well become an obsolete designation with the increased amount of states that recognize some form of life partner or life-long partner. WP should not subconsciously indicate that a same gender partnership is only valid if there is some form of government recognition/ceremony where as the same standard by practice is not followed by some authorities for hetero unmarried couples.76.170.88.72 (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the whole world, not just the USA. (Which I'm guessing is what you're talking about when you say "the increased amount of states...") And what precisely are you proposing? HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2014

can I edit this please i am a highly trained professor Professor Baralabinda (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Misleading oversimplification of the scientific basis against stereotypes

A current phrase in the article, in regards to stereotypes of homosexuals, 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. Gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects.[2]" This statement is a misleading because it appears to argue that homosexuality and sexual behavior, like number of partners and length of relationships, have no correlation and that homosexuals and heterosexuals have been scientifically proven to be identical in their relationship characteristics. In reality, this is wrong. The correlations between homosexuality and sexual behavior is a very complex issue in social science, as many studies have noted differences in many (but not all) homosexuals as far as sexual behavior, including number of partners.

Previous discussions (see Archive 22 "Unreliable sources") have noted that the wording of this article only intends to point out that the stereotype of all homosexuals as promiscuous is not accurate. However, these previous discussions only led to subtle changes in the article, doing little to change the unintended and scientifically inaccurate implication.

I would recommend qualifying the misleading statement to read something like " but there is little scientific basis to such generalizations. Despite some complex differences in behavior [citations], gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in many aspects."

Other possible rewordings that avoid contradicting the existing body of research include, "to abuse children, but many scientific studies refute these stereotypes. Generally gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships, just like heterosexuals." or "Research suggests that such generalizations are inaccurate [citation] and exaggerate any differences in homosexual and heterosexual relationships or commitment."

Qualifying the statement like this may offend some LGB advocates who would prefer a more unilateral, simplistic take on the issue, but implying that science has proved homosexual and heterosexual relationships to be identical would be inaccurate. It might be necessary to add more material on this article about this complex issue, as organizations like the FRC tend to emphasize inaccurate, older research to make a point of the promiscuity argument.

50.82.164.7 (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)CP 12 Jun, 2014

Looks like an improvement to me. May be more acceptable if you reorder to put the "but" denial first e.g. "but such generalizations run counter to scientific studies" or if you can find an authoritative cites speaking on this topic. The second bit a bit over states at certainty for either persuasion with "form stable", seems "can form stable" would be more accurate, but if you have an authoritative cite then use what it says. Markbassett (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the priveleges to edit this an make this small but important change. Can someone do this for me?

50.82.164.7 (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like there to be some mention (or perhaps I missed it, the article is so long) on asexuality, and how asexuals may be mistaken for homosexuals. I believe this is quite common. I know a woman who, as a young girl, was sent to psychotherapists for 8 years together, to have her supposed homosexuality "cured". She was only 16 when this began. As a matter of fact, she was asexual but her indifference to boys was supposed to be a sign of homosexuality. The psychotherapists didn't tell her the diagnosis, just that she wasn't "feminine" enough, and that this had to be "cured". This enforced psychotherapy was devastating to her. One example is how it drove her into the arms of a boy who just exploited her sexually and made her miserable. It also trigggered serious eating disorders in her life. Also, as for Sappho, I'm not sure she should be mentioned in this article. There is no evidence at all that she was a homosexual. Her poems can't be accepted as evidence; they're works of art/literature, NOT her private diary. smilesofasummernightSmilesofasummernight (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

References

This is somewhat confusing

"80% of the children being raised by same-sex couples in US are their biological children"

...says the article. As far as I know conception requires an egg cell and a sperm . Since women don't produce sperm and men don't produce egg cells and the current technology doesn't provide the oportunity to create embryos out of two sperms/two egg cells exactly 0% of the children are biological children of both parents. So what this sentene seems to mean is that 80% of the children are biologically children of one of the couples' partners. How to reword it so that the sentence doesn't sound ridiculous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.208.86 (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked up the source and here is what is says:

"more than 80 percent of the children being raised by gay couples are not adopted, according to Gates. And the largest number of children in same-sex families are a result of previous heterosexual marriages."

If noone objects I'm going to reword it to

"more than 80% of the children being raised by same-sex couples in the US are biological children of one of the partners' previous heterosexual marriages'

as it sounds more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.208.86 (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I just noticed that the page is blocked. Can someone do the edit for me then, please? 77.254.208.86 (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It may be an opportunity for you to register as an editor. I started some years ago in a similar way, and have been enjoying editing since then. Go ahead, you will find help from other editors, for starting you can direct to my talk page.--Auró (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no, don't change it to that. The source is not clearly worded, a significant (although not largest) portion of those children could be a result of surrogacy or IVF. 70.31.223.191 (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This point could be of interest. Are there trustworthy statistics about surrogacy in homosexual parenting?--Auró (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This was added to the article as "80% of the children being raised by same-sex couples in the US are not adopted and most are the result of heterosexual marriages", which is closer to the source text than the phrasing proposed above, but still not quite supported by it; we can't jump from "the largest number" to "most". It could be the largest single group and still be less than half.--Trystan (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Cause/etiology

Flyer22's comment here that most people don't know what etiology is may well be correct, but I still think that there are valid reasons to prefer "etiology" over "cause". It is a more formal and appropriate term, and an encyclopedia that prides itself on accuracy should use it, rather than worry that readers may be ignorant of the meaning of the word (Wikipedia makes it easy for people to find out what the word means, of course). "Etiology" may be defined as "an inquiry into the origin or causes of anything"; using it makes it slightly clearer that the cause or causes of homosexuality are still unknown and a subject of ongoing research. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

For everyone, here is the link to the Etiology article. Regarding the edits in question, as seen here and here, I stand by use of "Cause" or "Causes." In strictly medical cases, as shown at WP:MEDMOS, I might be more inclined to go with "etiology." Flyer22 (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The first subsection at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Sections, however, uses "Causes"; I don't see any of the subsections in that section use "etiology" as a heading. Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Glaad declares the term homosexual verboten

From the media guide: Offensive: "homosexual" (n. or adj.) Preferred: "gay" (adj.); "gay man" or "lesbian" (n.); "gay person/people" Please use gay or lesbian to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay." The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term "homosexual" (see AP & New York Times Style). —what should be done about this? Ericl (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The link provided says neither that GLAAD declared it to be pejorative, not demanded that it be banned. And GLAAD did not incorrectly use "it's". I have fixed your errors. In the future, please ensure the accuracy of your edits by not misrepresnting your sources. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 17:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

then what part of "Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes." says that they don't want it's use "banned?" Ericl (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the word "banned" implies that there is a mechanism in place to punish people for doing the thing in question. This is not such a case. They're asking people to stop using the word, but they're not calling for legislation against its use or for editors to punish their employees for using it. Nor are they demanding anything at all. They're asking for cooperation. To make an analogy: You might politely ask guests to your house to take their shoes off at the door. But that wouldn't mean you were banning their shoes, or calling for their shoes to be banned from anywhere. Nor would it constitute a demand. Garik (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a "code" sent out to media outlets to prevent them from using "homophobic" language. Yes, it's polite, but then most of these things always start out this way. It's saying, "this time we're asking you nicely, next time, we'll picket your house..."Ericl (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

'what part of "Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes." says that they don't want it's use "banned?"' -- No part. A ban is a legal instrument to prohibit something from happening. "Please" is a polite request. "Avoid" is not an absolute prohibition.

'It's a "code" sent out to media outlets to prevent them from using "homophobic" language.... It's saying, "this time we're asking you nicely, next time, we'll picket your house..." -- Thank you for interpreting this for the reader. This, however, violates WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." Ground Zero | t 13:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

For documentation here on this talk page, this is the article text Ground Zero and Ericl are debating. I added the term homosexual to the above title to make it clearer what this discussion is about. If Ground Zero minds, he can of course revert the heading to its original title. We (I and others), at WP:Med, recently discussed the offensiveness of the term homosexual, noting when it can be offensive and when it is appropriate to use. That discussion also involved gay male editors, and two of them (Wesley Mouse and Jonathunder) appear to be okay with use of the term homosexual; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56#Use of the term "homosexual." I noted there that the appropriateness of the word homosexual has been discussed various times at WP:LGBT. In the most recent discussion we had about that there, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 49#Homosexual vs Gay in articles, I stated: "[W]hether or not to use gay or lesbian as opposed to homosexual -- has been discussed a few times at this WikiProject; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#LGBT instead of homosexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 47#Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles."

In that second discussion ("Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual"), you can see a general agreement to not use homosexual as a noun, unless somehow necessary because of clarity. Using the word homosexual will be needed in some cases, such as at certain points when speaking of sexual orientation or same-sex sexual activity, as is demonstrated by some aspects of the Homosexuality article. Some LGBT people find the term homosexual offensive because they consider it too clinical and stigmatizing (the Gay article addresses that in detail); other LGBT people don't find the term offensive at all. The term homosexuality (which often, not always, indicates behavior more than sexual orientation, as opposed to the term homosexual) is commonly seen as more acceptable than the term homosexual. After all, homosexuality is the term that is most commonly used to refer to same-sex sexual behavior. We have the Homosexuality article, which can refer to a sexual orientation or to sexual behavior; we don't have the Same-sex sexual behavior article; nor should we, per WP:Content fork. I also noted that WP:LGBT editors addressed "the setting in history" aspect; this is because the term homosexual, and similar, did not exist in, for example, the Sappho period. In that aforementioned second discussion, Rivertorch makes excellent points. Flyer22 (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the section title change helps clarify what we're talking about. As a gay man, I agree with GLAAD's recommendation against using the scientific term in social situations. It would be ridiculous, however, for GLAAD or anyone else to try to ban it, so I am glad that they did no such thing, and Wikipedia should not suggest that they did because one editor wants to go beyond what GLAAD actually said. For the record, I am also engaged in a debate with Eric1 at Talk:42nd Canadian federal election where I and other editors are trying to get him to understand and accept Wikipedia policies on WP:CIVILITY and WP:No personal attacks. -- Ground Zero | t 13:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh heck! We're not thrashing this old rag about again are we? What is offensive to one person, may not be as offensive to another. It all depends on how an individual's mechanism to handle such "offensiveness" functions. As a gay man, if someone were to call me "homosexual", I would not be offensive - because they are correct in identifying me as a homosexual. When I get people calling me "faggot", "fag", or "shit stabber" - then I get offended as they are using slang terms in a derogatory manner. If someone were to use the term "homosexual" and say it in a hurtful derogatory way, then yes - I can see how one would be offended. But lighten up folks, if someone is offended then don't be beating them up over it. There are probably things we find offended that they do not. That's what is brilliant about the human being, we are all different, unique, and special in our own little ways. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We're not debating this old rag again. What we are discussing is the statement that an editor added to the article stating the GLAAD demanded that the term be banned, which GLAAD did not do. the debate on how it should or should not be used in Wikipedia took place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56#Use of the term "homosexual." I am really happy I missed that debate. Ground Zero | t 14:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: yes I am award of the previous debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56#Use of the term "homosexual."; I participated in that debate hence why Flyer22 flagged my name up in a previous comment above. And when I said "thrashing the old rag again", I meant we are still discussing about "homosexual" being offensive and people trying to get the word banned. The chances of the word ever being banned is highly unlikely. Not unless every dictionary in the world suddenly removed the word and it vanished out of vocabulary existence. We will get people who find certain terms and words as offensive. But being open-minded plays a high role in a person determining something as offensive or not. Even the word "gay" is seen as offensive to some, depending on the context it is being used. For example, if I were to say "Oh look at that dirty little gay boy" or "look at that homosexual scumbag" - then I've used the words in a derogatory context and being offensive. But if I say "This is my friend, he is gay" or "he is homosexual" - I've spoken in a friendly non-offensive manner. We're going through something similar where I live, and people burning down a Christmas Tree, all because it is "offensive to their religion". Another incident involved people being banned from entering a shop on Remembrance Day if they were wearing a poppy - because the shop owner seen the poppy symbol as offensive. We will get people that find certain things offensive. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: Something I should have mentioned above is that GLAAD advised against using the term homosexual before 2014; therefore, I have tweaked this text in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. So it seems that nothing that Eric1 wrote was accurate. That is very disappointing. Ground Zero | t 17:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's easy for the media manipulators. They just use the term (in print) as LGBT. Fine for them, but a particular Wikipedia article may not be discussing "B" or "T!"

Second, we have a lot of still-applicable reliable citations which use "homosexual."

Third, we have trouble enough with genderless phenomenon, like s/he contortions. This just makes it worse.

Fourth, I thought all genders were supposed to be equal? :) Student7 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Gallup poll

As usual, the Gallup poll portion of an article was overemphasized, compared to the other material, which was quite different. The author was apparently surprised as the Gallup data and therefore mentioned it prominently. However, the other data, the author summary (from a number of sources) reduces the LGBT population considerably. The paragraph can either remain "Gallup" focused and earlier state what everyone else concluded, or furnish the summary by itself without focusing unduly on the Gallup results. Student7 (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Student7 your edit introduced errors which I fixed in this dif, along with adding error margins. The comment in your edit note about "Gallup is very liberal" was unnecessary editorializing - please keep that kind of stuff out. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)