| Revision as of 23:02, 6 August 2009 editHaiduc (talk | contribs)15,071 edits →Non-consensus edits to lead← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:06, 12 January 2025 edit undoTtwaring (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,919 edits revert - block evasionTag: Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{FAQ}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|
|
{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN |
|
|counter = 15 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(45d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Homosexuality/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |blp=no |1= |
|
|
{{LGBTProject |class=B |importance=top |nested=yes }} |
|
|
{{philosophy |importance=mid |class=B |ethics=yes |social=yes |nested=yes }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology |class=B |importance=High |nested=yes }} |
|
|
{{WP Sexuality |class=B |importance=Top |nested=yes }} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|
|action1date=5 August 2006 |
|
|action1date=5 August 2006 |
|
|action1link=Talk:Homosexuality/archive10#Good_article_promotion |
|
|action1link=Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 10#Good article promotion |
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|action1oldid=67927549 |
|
|action1oldid=67927549 |
| Line 26: |
Line 13: |
|
| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Homosexuality/1 |
|
| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Homosexuality/1 |
|
| action2result = delisted |
|
| action2result = delisted |
|
| action2oldid = |
|
| action2oldid = 229150335 |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|
|topic=Socsci |
|
|
|small = yes}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Homosexuality/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Homosexuality/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{archivebox | auto=yes |index=/Archive index}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action3 = GAN |
|
== citation to add == |
|
|
|
| action3date = 13:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
| action3link = Talk:Homosexuality/GA1 |
|
|
| action3result = failed |
|
|
| action3oldid = 336577694 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action4 = GAN |
|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18561014 is a reference for: |
|
|
|
| action4date = 08:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
| action4link = Talk:Homosexuality/GA2 |
|
|
| action4result = failed |
|
|
| action4oldid = 410080956 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
|
|topic=Socsci}} |
|
A 2009 study also suggested a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual people from the maternal line (but not in those related from the paternal one). |
|
|
|
{{calm}} |
|
</blockquote>{{Template:unsignedIP|98.125.232.173}} |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
:This appears already to be cited to that source. ] (]) 05:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid |ethics=yes |social=yes }} |
|
== Female sexuality == |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High }} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=Top }} |
|
I have the same issue in Bulgarian wikipedia were discoures on homosexuality are far from scientific. However we share something in common. There aren't enough images of female homosexuality in the major issue about homoesexuality. It is like the homosexuality is predominantly male or of male (may be it is but...?! i still think there is a missrepresentation). There is an issue about lesbian in English and Bulgarian wikipedia but I find that lack of female image of homosexuality repressing, silencing female otherness and deminoring female homosexuality. I would like to call for more attention for representing it if not fully, at least to an extend the female homosexuality both in images and as a history (becuase in modern terms you speak of LGB which is fine...but). If you make a simple search, there is not one mentioning of the word lesbian in the history section. Please pay attention to this. It is like female homosexuality come up from nowhere lol :)))))))) Although it seems female homosexual (homoerotic) relations to be more of literary realm than a penetration itself (penetration as depicted, punished, etc.), I still think they need more attention (in historical aspect). Indeed some words can be put there: even if they are "no evidence but much literary production on behalf of female homosexuality" --] (]) 19:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=High}} |
|
:I wrote the ] article, which is more comprehensive and coherent than this one, only because so few people actually edit it. Can you explain why the information in that article is not usable? --] (]) 19:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Etymology section}} |
|
::There are ] and ] issues, but in the ] itself ] no lesbian ] or ]s are found, only male? I guess if you haven't understood my previous post you would not understood this either no metter how simple words I use --] (]) 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Ah, well. I do understand. Male homosexuality gets all the attention and edits. It's more offensive than female homosexuality, which is just hot when the chicks aren't fat. That's me being sarcastic. The Homosexuality article is a tar pit. Unless editors who wish to be involved in it can work together, it will remain a disaster. --] (]) 20:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It is not only the battle of discourses on male homosexuality. --] (]) 22:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Consistency == |
|
|
|
|
|
Under the health header, I want to question the green and light orange boxes that contain some bits of information on how to be safer during sex. I wonder, do these recommendations apply to only homosexual men and women, or is it just general information that could be applied to both heterosexuality and homosexuality. (I realize the citations do target homosexual men and women, however the recommendations in their current forms are not orientation specific).<br /><br />Currently the Misplaced Pages article on heterosexuality does not contain these boxes or a "health" header at all. Nor does it mention that <blockquote> "in contrast to its benefits, sexual behavior can be a disease vector." </blockquote> The wikilink that "disease vector" points to is general information, and the citation (119) in the next sentence right after my quote is to a Canadian site, and is not orientation specific. I think there needs to be some balancing out. I wouldn't want to see potentially valuable information removed, perhaps it should be shared between the articles. There are numerous sources that recommend heterosexuals use these same recommendations... should the citations require changing. --] (]) 08:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've tried to make it look less obtrusive, contain it within health, and used nicer colour for background. ] (]) 13:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Articles don't need to be consistent to one another - the same information can be presented differently or not at all. It would be nice but each article grows on its own. One of the longstanding LGBT issues has been a disparity of access to healthcare coupled with cultural and societal attitudes that LGBT people are diseased. Each of those boxes is labelled accurately to how medical and health professionals view the topic - without regard to sexuality and sexual identity - ''Men who have sex with men'' and ''women who have sex with women''. A generalized version of this ''could'' be applied to the safe sex and heterosexuality articles if desired. ] 16:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::But the colours are horrid - lilac looks much nicer, and by placing them either side of the section on health, it puts them both on an equal footing. If you want separate colours for boys and girls, I can understanding not using blue & pink, but why use such revolting tones of colour? ] (]) 22:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That was lilac? It came off on my end as grey. We can certainly find different colours but the formatting is fine. We're just presenting two boxes so as long as they are both equally sized and in the same section it's a simple matter of choice which is first, you pick, I'm not bothered. ] 10:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It was lilac, but I can make it more vivid. The reason I moved the boxes was that most of the second box fell outside the health section, having them either side (and stretching a bit) allowed them to 'frame' the section, but I guess much of this will depend on the scaling in the browser. <s>When I have time I'll play with the colours</s>. ] (]) 14:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Just checked, at 100% it does fit - I use 75% text size on my browser, and it throws the text boxes out, and sticks the edit tabs in the text. So, forget it, and I can't be bothered with the colours - I'm not reading it; if somebody else is concerned with the aesthetics, they can do it. ] (]) 14:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::LOL! I'm usually keen on finding campy colours but in this case kept coming up with neutrality issues, if you do find something give it a try. I know there's a good lavender around. ] 23:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Map to update == |
|
|
|
|
|
The world homosexuality laws map (currently http://en.wikipedia.org/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg) should be updated. India announced that homosexual acts are legal in this country: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/02/india.sex.ruling/index.html |
|
|
--] (]) 11:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Destinero == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please convert this to normal case, and replace where you have inserted this as a source using the decapitalised version. ] (]) 10:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Japanese same-sex writings should be under East Asia? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to add, though I don't have an account, Ihara Saikauku's work translating The Great Mirror Of Male Love. This is a collection of Japanese texts, from the Classical Period, documenting male homosexual relationships, glorifying them, and often offering them with morals that are generalizable to all love, all social relationships, and all conduct in the Classical Period. If someone with an account could add a citation, that would be great. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 08:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Romantic" & article lead == |
|
|
{{hidden begin |
|
|
|title =Compacted discussion thru Rev 9 |
|
|
|titlestyle =text-align:left; |
|
|
|bodystyle = text-align:left; |
|
|
}} |
|
|
The lede has been a point of serious contention in the past. It's still far from perfect, either in the abstract or in terms of WP guidelines, but it does represent a compromise based on consensus. As I see it, the wording as it has pretty much stood for a long time now doesn't exclude other meanings (such as romantic attraction in addition to sexual attraction), but it gets way too wordy and the meaning becomes awkward if we start explicitly putting other meanings in. (For instance, if romantic attraction, why not romantic behavior as well?) Maybe this is a good time to hash out a whole new lede; I don't know. But the way it's structured now, I really think it's best left alone. ] (]) 05:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I certainly appreciate the precarious balance of text in an article on a subject considered by some to be contentious, and I agree with your objection to the clunky "and/or". However, I cannot agree with placing the article's lead under a hands-off bell jar simply because it has stood in its current form for some arbitrarily "long time"; ] is a logical fallacy. Nor do I agree with placing it off-limits for improvement in its precision and accuracy because some might consider it "way too wordy". We are writing an encyclopædia here: our task is to create articles that clearly define and describe their subject matter. Definitions that don't explicitly include all salient aspects of the subject matter are incomplete, even if they don't explicitly ''exclude'' the missing relevant points. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Regrettably though it may be from a lexical standpoint, romantic attraction ''and'' romantic behaviour amongst members of the same sex are covered by the English term '''homosexuality''': , , , , , , , , , . That being the well-supported case, it is incumbent upon us to include romantic attraction and behaviour in the lead definition of the term covered by this present article. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
::I also think that it is essential to present the romantic aspect of homosexual bonding, and that it must be in the lede, and that it should precede the sexual aspect. ] (]) 16:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I neither take issue with "romantic" being in the lede nor think that the lede should be untouchable. What I do suggest is that there is no evidence that consensus has changed about the current wording, and therefore, given the contention (involving the lede specifically, not the article in general) in the past, it would be an excellent idea to propose new wording first. That way, we'll be less likely to revisit the same arguments all over again. My goal in making this request is primarily to prevent unnecessary recurring déjà vu moments of drama. Perhaps I'm overly worried about that. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The main problem with the lede, as I see it, is that it ''is'' merely a definition when it should be a summary of the article that follows. We might be able to fix that by rewriting the lede and moving the definitions down to the next section, although I'm dubious. The lede would still need to summarize the definitions section, and it would have to do so very succinctly. I'm willing to participate in a complete rewrite, but I strongly urge a sandbox approach. ] (]) 17:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I thought what we had was well-written but if an alternative was presented here for discussion I'm certainly open to anything that would be improving on what we have. ] 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Proposed lead=== |
|
|
Here is a start at proposed text for an improved lead. I have copyedited the existing lead to reduce redundancy and stiltedness, improve flow, incorporate ''romantic'' per ↑above↑, and paraphrase rather than directly quote the cited sources: {{Quotation|'''Homosexuality''' refers to sexual or romantic attraction or ] among members of the same ] or ]. Homosexual ] means an enduring tendency to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to members of the same sex, and also refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.<ref>Existing ref 1</ref><ref>Existing ref 2</ref>}} |
|
|
—<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>23:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:It reads well. One giant red flag: the phrase "homosexual orientation". There was a serious dispute over that, which resulted in this article being split into two, with a separate ] article. Imo, it was a POV fork based largely on one editor's apparent desire to put a firewall around the concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation, in effect putting gay people who acknowledged being gay but remained chaste into a separate (read: arguably better) class from sexually active gay people. The separate article remained for many months and, after much discussion, was merged back into this article. One of the most compelling rationales behind the merge was that "homosexual orientation" is a term outside mainstream usage, so it would be opening a real can of worms to reinsert it, I think. If you have time, check the archives. (MiszaBot was unleashed here at some point last year, so all this is likely across multiple threads on several archive pages.) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Also, let's keep in mind that if we're doing anything more than another stopgap measure here, the lede, according to ], should summarize the main points of the article, not just define the term. ] (]) 00:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I find the use of 'romantic' problematic, in part because it is alien to me (I assumed it was something heterosexuals do), and such a nebulous concept I was tempted to remove it. I had to discuss this with my partner (she has more experience of homosexuality than I do) and she said that when I bake bread or make her a cup of tea, that is romantic. If that is the case, then I guess it's OK. I'm sure people who are homosexual make each other cups of tea or coffee just like people who are heterosexual might. ] (]) 00:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::'''Mish''', I can't tell if you're being serious or trying for a tongue-in-cheek comment. If you're being serious, please refer to the 10 refs provided above for the legitimacy of including ''romantic'' as a core component of homosexuality as '''currently''' understood (supplanting earlier, disparaging assumptions that it constitutes nothing more than an aberrant behaviour). |
|
|
|
|
|
:::'''Rivertorch''': Oy vey. The lengths to which some (such as the firewall editor you describe) will go to promulgate their own POV! Okeh, that's good to know. I agree with you that the lead should summarise the article and not just define its subject matter — reckoned we'd get past the initial issue of incorporating "romantic" and then work from there. I'll chew on it some more and put forth another proposal soon. In the meantime, anyone else is certainly welcome to do likewise! —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>00:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I would have said "'''Homosexuality''' refers to romantic or sexual attraction or ...." ] (]) 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Rev 1=== |
|
|
Here's my next go. The first paragraph defines, and the subsequent ones summarise. The current lead strays from its task and goes into extensively-cited detail about e.g. prevalence; I propose to move that detailed coverage (and associated refs) to the appropriate sections of the article text below the TOC. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Quotation|'''Homosexuality''' refers to romantic or sexual attraction or ] among members of the same ] or ]. It also means an enduring tendency to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to members of the same sex, and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.<ref>Existing ref 1</ref><ref>Existing ref 2</ref> Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species.<ref>Reference</ref> |
|
|
The human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately; reliable studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population are homosexual to some degree. |
|
|
|
|
|
<p>As a ], homosexuality is considered to lie within a ].<ref>Existing ref 3</ref> It has been both admired and condemned over the course of recorded history. Through much of the 20th century, homosexuality was generally regarded and ]. Many homosexuals attempt to hide their homosexuality from others out of fear of violence or rejection; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Gay young people in particular are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide as a result of ]. Cessation of this hiding is known as ] or simply "coming out". |
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Since the late 1960s, homosexuality has come to be widely regarded as a normal condition not warranting a cure or treatment, and there has been an accelerating trend towards ] for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, including the rights to ], ] and ], ], ], and ]. Terms of ] in current use for homosexual people include '']'' for women, '']'' for men, and '']'' collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all. |
|
|
}} <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07 29, 2009</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is shaping up nicely. I like how you sidestepped the issue of orientation in the first paragraph by defining the concept without using the word; that works for me. Two questions: |
|
|
:* If we took out the first period and inserted "or" to make it all one sentence, would that sentence be too long? The reason I ask is that the proposed construction might be seen as downplaying the orientation definition by relegating it to the second sentence. |
|
|
:* Can we manage without citations in the lede? I'm not opposed to them per se, but they do interrupt the visual flow a bit and I know a lot of Wikipedians think they are better left for later in an article. ] (]) 03:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I do not know why we are doing this here instead of in the article, but here goes: |
|
|
{{Quotation|'''Homosexuality''' refers to romantic or sexual attraction or ] among members of the same ] or ]. Homosexuality can be situational if it is temporary and factored by external conditions, or an orientation if these phenomena manifest as an enduring tendency reflected in an individual’s identity and membership in a community of others who share them.<ref>Existing ref 1</ref><ref>Existing ref 2</ref> Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species.<ref>Reference</ref> |
|
|
The human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately; reliable studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population are homosexual to some degree. |
|
|
|
|
|
<p>As a ], homosexual orientation is considered to lie within a ].<ref>Existing ref 3</ref> Same-sex love and sexuality has been both admired and condemned over the course of recorded history, depending on place and time and the form it took. Through much of the 20th century in Western culture, homosexual behavior was generally regarded and ]. Many people hide their homosexual activity or orientation out of fear of disapproval or violence; in the West they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Cessation of this hiding is known as ] or simply "coming out". Young people experiencing homosexual feelings are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide as a result of ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Since the late 1960s in the West, homosexuality has come to be widely regarded as a normal condition, and there has been an accelerating trend towards ] for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, including the rights to ], ] and ], ], ], and ]. Terms of ] in current use for homosexual people include '']'' for women, '']'' for men, and '']'' collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all. |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
] (]) 04:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
* First point - it was not only treated as mental illness, but as criminal activity. |
|
|
|
|target=Talk:Homosexuality/Archive index |
|
* Second point - you should only refer to 'homosexual romance' in the lead if there is a section that deals with 'homosexual romance' in the body of the text, as the lead is a summary of what is in the body, and having ten sources does not count for much unless the terms are unpacked somewhere in the main text. All these seem to show is that people like Giddens (who is a notable sociologist, but no authority on sexuality, sexology, LGBT studies in general or homosexuality in particular) use the term. If there were a link to an article ], which shows the term can be taken for granted, fine - otherwise it needs to be dealt with in the article before it can be inserted into the lead. |
|
|
|
|mask=Talk:Homosexuality/Archive <#> |
|
* Third point, my earlier comment about this was made with ironic and humorous intent, because I have only come across the term 'romance' used in this context, at conferences, ironically or critically. Just because a term is used in sources does not mean that it can be used in the lead when it is not in the text, for example, ] (]) 08:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
::This version is quite non-sensical. "Homosexuality can be situational if it is temporary and factored by external conditions" is UNDUE weight. Def shouldnt be in the lead. Its also too Western centric. In West this in west that. "Since the late 1960s in the West, homosexuality has come to be widely regarded as a normal condition". WORLD health organization removed homosexuality as a mental disorder and few countries disagree with this. |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
{{cquote| |
|
|
|
|counter = 25 |
|
Homosexuality can refer to erotic attraction, sexual behavior, emotional attachment and a definition of self A common synonym for homosexual is gay. Homosexual women may also be referred as lesbians. |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Homosexuality/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
I'll add more later. ] (]) 08:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
== We need a FAQ for this == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
We’re getting incessant redundant requests complaining about the definition including gender. Therefore a FAQ is in order. It should obviously include “why does it describe the sex/gender thing etc.” (in more formal terminology of course) but what should the answer be? ] (]) 23:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
:::Thank you, Phoenix, that is exactly my point. The lede IS too Wester centric, and has been so all along. So, if you are going to make all these generalizations which are applicable largely to the Western ambit, you must qualify them as such, or else risk leaving readers with a false impression that was is true of the West is true of everybody else as well. So let's be sure to NOT be ethnocentric. |
|
|
:::And let's not skew things too much in the favor of the "gay orientation" side either. I have read (though I did not keep the ref), in light of the recent Iranian murders of the two boys involved with each other, that most if not all Iranian boys fool around. And that is just one example. From a historical perspective, situational prevails over orientation. So yes, it needs to be treated at the outset, or, again, risk being ethnocentric. ] (]) 10:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Gender refers exclusively to psychological phenomenon. Sex refers exclusively to biological phenomenon. Sexual attraction refers exclusively to physiological (bodily) attraction. One is not attracted someone based on their psychological state of being (mind). One is sexually attracted to someone else, only through their physiology(body). Homosexaulity refers to sexual attraction of a member of the same sex. Homosexual attraction, therefore, refers exclusively to physiological (bodily) attraction. |
|
::::Find sources then. Anectodal stories dont really matter. ] (]) 17:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I could also reference how some (mainly ideologically driven people) attempts to conflate "sex" to "gender", by stating that "one can to identify as the opposite , of their physiology", even though that would be the equivalent of "subjectifying" an objective reality. However, i would prefer not to explain further, since some, might perceive such a line of inquiry/reasoning as inherently politcal, and attempting to explain such thoughts would only create a needless debate. |
|
|
:In reference to the above, aformentioned statement, i wish to declare, that i declare; even the mere existence of anything being political / controversial / subjective / personal; to not exist. ] (]) 08:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm not sure everybody would necessarily agree with all of those statements. |
|
|
::Certainly a distinction between the meanings of "sex" and "gender" is pretty new in the English language and it's only in the last few years where trans rights and issues have become a more politically polarised conversation that the distinction has become more prominent. |
|
|
::To quote from the '']'' entry for "": |
|
|
::{{talk quote block|1= '''3a.''' ''gen.'' Males or females viewed as a group; = Also: the property or fact of belonging to one of these groups.<br/><small>Originally extended from the grammatical use at sense (sometimes ''humorously''), as also in Anglo-Norman and Old French. In the 20th cent., as ''sex'' came increasingly to mean sexual intercourse (see ), ''gender'' began to replace it (in early use euphemistically) as the usual word for the biological grouping of males and females. It is now often merged with or coloured by sense 3b.</small>}} |
|
|
::{{talk quote block|1='''3b.''' ''Psychology'' and ''Sociology'' (originally ''U.S.''). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.}} |
|
|
::While meaning 3b confirms @]'s opening claim, meaning 3a contradicts it and continually arguing over semantics is, frankly, not especially helpful towards building an encyclopædia. |
|
|
::The opening sentence of the lead reads {{talk quote inline|'''Homosexuality''' is ] attraction, ], or ] between members of the same ] or ].}} and has 3 different references for including both words. I don't think that the ] politicisation of trans people (personal declarations notwithstanding) is something that needs reflection in the lead. I do fear that wording an FAQ item or hatnote for this talk page would end up being no less controversial, however. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ])</small></span> 11:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think the key questions to ask ourselves are: |
|
|
:::* Would a FAQ be helpful to a significant number of people coming here in good faith? |
|
|
:::* Would a FAQ discourage trolls? |
|
|
:::* Would a FAQ make it easier for us to deal with trolls? |
|
|
:::* Would creating a FAQ cost more effort than it saves? |
|
|
:::I fear the answers here are maybe, definitely not, maybe and maybe. So, I'm not against a FAQ, if anybody can come up with a good one, but I think it will be of limited use because the trolls are only here to be disruptive and a FAQ only helps those who actually want to be helped. --] (]) 16:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@]: Agreed. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ])</small></span> 18:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::How do you define the word "troll"? I have literally been called a left wing "troll", and a right wing "bot", and even a "nazi" online before, and all on the same day. Though in fairness, i am mostly called those things on twitter. |
|
|
::::Also, i only, actually, found this page, while trying to find where to propose a change to the "Homosexuality" article. Misplaced Pages is very confusing when trying to understand how to do things. ] (]) 02:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::* In my personal lexicon, 'troll' is a gadfly with malice aforethought. Typically, the term on WP is used to denote people who edit purely to disrupt or provoke with no intention of improving Misplaced Pages, whereas you (from the edits I've seen) genuinely do want to improve this resource. Me, I'm just here for the popcorn. Cheers, ] (]) 17:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Daniel is right that trolls will be undeterred (witness the perennial trolling on ]), but like on other articles that see similar sealioning and trolling, it can still be helpful to have a basic FAQ ("Q: why does the article define this as X? A: because that's how reliable sources define it"). For one thing, it makes it slightly more obvious that certain perennial re-requests are trolling, but for another it's also just less typing to write {{tl|FAQ}} and just transclude it in response to perennial edit requests (then hatting them if necessary). ] (]) 09:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
===Rev 2=== |
|
|
|
::I agree with both of you. Trolls be trolls; imho, attempts to deter them are like deterring the tide. If they’re girded for culture combat, they’ll never read an FAQ. However, an FAQ might be a great resource for actual humans. The article is long -- very long -- and the (extremely well-crafted) lede is pretty dense. Do we have enough valid questions to support an FAQ? Do we have concise answers for those we have? I’ve never contributed to one on WP, but would be happy to volunteer time to work on it if someone can provide some guidance. Cheers, ] (]) 17:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
'''Rivertorch''', I see your point about refs, but it seems to me we ought to support at least those assertions most likely to catch the eye of POV-pushers seeking to worm their opinions in. As for your other question: Yes. Removing that period would make the sentence too long, IMO. I agree with you, '''Haiduc''' and '''Phoenix''', that the lead needs expansion to account for substantial differences in perspective and status at the international level, and to increase emphasis on the situational side. I've done so below with more internal links. I don't agree with your preference, '''Mish''', to quash the inclusion of ''romantic''. We have ample ] support for the inclusion of ''romantic'', so in it should go. You definitely raise a valid point that it needs coverage in the main text of the article, but I'm not convinced by your argument that this valid, supported, and apposite term should be kept out of the lead until it is well covered in the main text. Please remember that the state of most articles on Misplaced Pages is '''unfinished'''; we're working towards incremental improvement here. When ''romantic'' is included in the lead, if one of us participating in this thread doesn't do the work to get a start including it in the main text, sooner than later somebody else will. If that doesn't happen in some reasonable amount of time, ''then'' it will be appropriate to discuss removing it from the lead. I do, though, agree with your excellent reminder that homosexuality was (and in many places still is) a crime. Please take a look: |
|
|
|
:I would certainly agree a FAQ to explain how this decision has been reached would be helpful. |
|
|
:I understand the argument that gender can also = sex in day to day language. However when specifically discussing sexual orientation, gender is more frequently used to indicate a self conception and/or adherence to male/female stereotypes. |
|
|
:So either the article erases gender as a meaningful identify marker (as only sex matters), or it erases homosexuality, by including heterosexual attraction as homosexuality. It is either inconsiderately worded, or just wrong. |
|
|
:Alternatively the article is going to need to explain that gender is being used as a synonym for sex, rather than gender identity. ] (]) 23:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== History section and social constructionism == |
|
{{Quotation|'''Homosexuality''' refers to ] or sexual attraction or ] among members of the same ] or ]. This may be situational, or it may be in the context of an enduring tendency to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to members of the same sex. As a ], homosexuality is considered within the ] of human sexuality,<ref>Existing ref 3</ref> and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.<ref>Existing ref 1</ref><ref>Existing ref 2</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently, the history section reads: {{green|"Some scholars argue that the term "homosexuality" is problematic when applied to ancient cultures since, for example, neither Greeks or Romans possessed any one word covering the same semantic range as the modern concept of "homosexuality""}} |
|
Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species.<ref>Reference</ref> The human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately; reliable studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population are homosexual to some degree. It has been both ] throughout history according to various societies' ]. Through much of the 20th century, homosexuality was generally ] and ]. The ] ] homosexuality in 1967, the U.S. ] removed homosexuality from their list of diseases in 1973, the ] did likewise in 1990,<ref></ref> and homosexuality has been delisted as a disease and decriminalized in many countries. However, the legal status of homosexuality ] and there remain jurisdictions in which homosexuality is a crime with severe penalties including ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This seems incorrect. Bailey : {{green| "The historian John Boswell documented the existence of obviously heterosexual or homosexual characters in Greek literature.... The Romans, just a few centuries later, had a word to describe feminine, exclusively homosexual men: ''cinaedi''"}} p. 128. So, the citing of social constructionists probably needs revision. ] (]) 05:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
<p>Many homosexuals attempt to hide their homosexuality from others out of fear of violence or rejection; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Gay young people in particular are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide as a result of ]. Cessation of this hiding is known as ] or simply "coming out". Since the late 1960s, homosexuality has come to be widely regarded, especially in the West, as a normal condition not warranting a cure or treatment, and there has been an accelerating trend towards ] for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Terms of ] in current use for homosexual people include '']'' for women, '']'' for men, and '']'' collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all. |
|
|
|
:We probably have to include their views with proper attribution, but well-sourced scholarly arguments to the contrary - which Boswell certainly count as - should also be included. I would suggest citing Boswell directly for this. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
}} —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>14:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
::Noting that there are characters in Greek literature that we would ''now'' classify as homosexual does not mean that the Greeks {{tq|possessed any one word covering the same semantic range}}. Many suffragettes fought to outlaw drag in theatres. That does not mean they had the concept of TERFs at the start of the last century. The point of the sentence is important: The modern homo/hetero dichotomy is not universal in the historical record, and many (perhaps most) ancient and classical cultures would be baffled by our current classifications. I believe that the sources clearly support the current phrasing. Cheers, ] (]) 00:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It would be more reasonable to present both a constructionist and an essentialist view. I don't think the constructionists have strong enough evidence to claim that ancient cultures would be "baffled" by our current classifications. More importantly, it's probably a good idea to tidy up the history section to actually focus on history, instead of large paragraphs dedicated to social constructionist thought at the top. We can probably put constructionist vs essentialist arguments underneath another sub-heading. ] (]) 23:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Comment == |
|
:It is too vague. What does it mean to say that "homosexuality" was a crime? The feelings? The actions? The romantic part? The sexual part? Which sexual part? The whole thing is an oversimplification and misleads the reader. It was not homosexuality that was illegal, since there is so much that is included by that term, but only certain aspects of homosexual expression, which may have varied from place to place. What was true in England was not true in France and certainly was not true in Italy. And we have not even left Europe yet. ] (]) 15:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{atop |
|
|
|
|
|
| status = |
|
::Is it vague, or is it concise? This what we're discussing is a lead; it's meant to convey a concise overview summary of what's to be covered in detail in the article. I think "Homosexuality is punishable by death in some places" is a reasonable, concise summary of the situation; obviously greater coverage is needed in the article (after the lead) as to the details of what ''exactly'' is illegal, in ''which'' countries, and which ''precise'' acts are punishable by death under what ''specific'' circumstances. The lead is not the right place to go into that kind of detail. Likewise, while the circumstances surrounding the U.K. decriminalisation in 1967 are complicated and warrant substantial coverage, "Homosexuality was partially decriminalized in the U.K. in 1967" suffices for the lead. Do you have a better suggestion for how to summarise these salient points in the lead, without trying to cram the entire article into it? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>16:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
| result = 'twas a sock, move along. ]] 12:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
:::"Since the late 1960s, homosexuality has come to be widely regarded, especially in the West" is stupid. China has 1.4 billion people, more than the population of the West. Yet it doesnt regard homosexuality as a mental disorder. There are prolly more Xtian conversion therapy crap in US than in China altho US population is much lower. "especially in the West" is not warrented. "Since the late 1960s" ignored stuff like ancient Greek times. Current version reads better. |
|
|
:::"Since the Stonewall riots in 1969, widely considered the start of the modern LGBT rights movement, there has been increased visibility, recognition and legal rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, including the rights to marriage and civil unions, adoption and parenting, employment, military service, and equal access to health care." ] (]) 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: I agree that wording like 'homosexuality is a crime' needs to read more like 'homosexual acts are treated as criminal' (or whetever). I agree that the lead is a summary of the body of the article, and for that reason I don't agree on the inclusion of 'romance' in the lead when there is no mention in the text, in the hope that somebody someday will get around to this. This is not a personal whim, it is indicated in ]. This is more critical when there is no article on ] itself, and skimming articles on ] there are no sections on homosexuality either. I doubt I would be the only person who found it confusing to see this in the lead, and when seeking more information could find nothing on this in the encyclopedia that I could follow up on to expand the reference. Not very encyclopedic at all, and while this may be a deficiency in the enclyclopedia, I don't see using it as a reference in the lead of one article addresses the deficit. I am intrigued and keen to learn what homosexual romance is all about. ] (]) 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Rev 3=== |
|
|
'''Mish''', I can see how anyone could easily have missed the article's existing references to romantic relationships; they were not very conspicuous within an awkwardly-named subsection. I have made them more conspicuous and bolstered their support with . Furthermore, the main article linked from the relevant section of this article — ] — has as its first sentence ''A same-sex relationship can take one of many forms, from '''romantic''' and sexual, to non-romantic close relationships between two persons of the same gender.'' (emphasis mine). So while I definitely think this aspect needs considerable expansion, it is present in the article, and has been for some time. This would seem to satisfy your objection to ''romance'' being present in the lead. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Phoenix of 9''', you also raise a good point—even if you do it with unproductive words like "stupid"—with regard to China (and now India). I don't think I agree with putting Stonewall in the lead, for that would skew it very heavily towards the U.S. experience. Here's another proposal: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Quotation|'''Homosexuality''' refers to ] or sexual attraction or ] among members of the same ] or ]. This may be situational, or it may be in the context of an enduring tendency to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to members of the same sex. As a ], homosexuality is considered within the ] of human sexuality,<ref>Existing ref 3</ref> and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.<ref>Existing ref 1</ref><ref>Existing ref 2</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species.<ref>Reference</ref> The human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately; reliable studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population are homosexual to some degree. It has been both ] throughout history according to various societies' ]. Through much of the 20th century, homosexuality was widely ], and homosexual behaviour was ]. The ] ] homosexual sex in 1967, the U.S. ] removed homosexuality from their list of diseases in 1973, the ] did likewise in 1990,<ref></ref> and homosexuality has been delisted as a disease and decriminalized in many countries. However, the legal status of homosexuality ] and there remain jurisdictions in which homosexual behavior is a crime with severe penalties including ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Many homosexuals attempt to hide their homosexuality from others out of fear of violence or rejection; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Gay young people in particular are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide as a result of ]. Cessation of this hiding is known as ] or simply "coming out". Since the late 1960s, homosexuality has increasingly come to be generally regarded as a normal condition not warranting a cure or treatment, and there has been an accelerating trend towards ] for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, though substantial disapproval of homosexuality is still prevalent around the world. Terms of ] in current use for homosexual people include '']'' for women, '']'' for men, and '']'' collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all. |
|
|
}}—<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>23:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Rev 4=== |
|
|
Forgive me, I edit compulsively. Let me try for more brevity and a bit more specificity. We can not refer to "homosexuality" as an "it" when it really is a "they". Also, identity cannot be situational, so it cannot go in the first sentence. Conversion "therapy" is such a minor quirk it has no business in the lede. The focus on blame is inappropriately negative, it must be preceded by, and balanced with, praise. "From others" is redundant, since that is who we usually hide from. The 3rd para repetition of H not being a disease is redundant, we heard that already. Same for disapproval still persisting. |
|
|
{{Quotation|'''Homosexuality''' refers to ] or sexual attraction or ] among members of the same ]. This may be situational, or it may be the expression of an enduring tendency to experience such attractions primarily toward members of one's sex. As a ], homosexuality is considered within the ] of human sexuality,<ref>Existing ref 3</ref> and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.<ref>Existing ref 1</ref><ref>Existing ref 2</ref> <p>Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species.<ref>Reference</ref> The human prevalence of homosexual orientation is difficult to determine accurately; studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population are homosexual to some degree. Particular aspects have been ] throughout history according to various societies' ]. When praised those aspects have been seen as a way to improve society. When condemned, those homosexual activities were seen as either a sin or a disease, and some homosexual behaviour was ]. Since the second half of the 20th century homosexuality in general has been delisted as a disease<ref></ref> and decriminalized in most developed countries. However, the legal status of homosexuality ] and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are a crime with severe penalties including ]. <p>Many homosexuals hide their feeling and activities out of fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Gay young people in particular are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide as a result of ]. Choosing open expression of one's homosexual orientation is known as ] or simply "coming out". At the present time there is an accelerating trend towards ] for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Terms of ] in current use for homosexual people include '']'' for women, '']'' for men, and '']'' collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all.}} |
|
|
] (]) 00:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There's nothing to forgive (except perhaps the trivial housekeeping matter of not putting a subhead above your rev for easy section editing ;-) I've taken the liberty of doing so, hope you don't mind.) ! I like your revision quite a lot. The only quibbles I think of are minor: |
|
|
# ''Open expression of one's homosexual orientation is known as coming out of(...)''. In fact, only the transition from hiding to open expression of one's homosexuality is known as "coming out". Ongoing such expression is not known as "coming out", but rather as "''being'' out". For this reason, I prefer something closer to my proposed wording ("Cessation of this hiding(...)"). I'll bet we can figure out an optimal compromise here. |
|
|
# ''At the present time there is an accelerating trend(...)'' This, to me, makes the phenomenon seem more sudden and recent than it actually is. Certainly the trend is presently accelerating at a rate unprecedented in the last century, but there's been a well-documented trend in this direction since the late 1960s; I think we should say so to provide accurate historical context for the reader. What do you say? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>01:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Rev 5=== |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thank you for all that. Actually, I had surreptitiously fiddled with the text, maybe even as you were writing your comments, so I will copy it below and revise it as per your suggestions (and who knows what else.) I also moved and edited the text on young people and homophobia, its previous placement rankled. |
|
|
::{{Quotation|'''Homosexuality''' refers to ] or sexual attraction or ] among members of the same ]. This may be situational, or it may be the expression of an enduring tendency to experience such attractions primarily toward members of one's sex. As a ], homosexuality is considered within the ] of human sexuality,<ref>Existing ref 3</ref> and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.<ref>Existing ref 1</ref><ref>Existing ref 2</ref> <p>Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species.<ref>Reference</ref> The human prevalence of homosexual orientation is difficult to determine accurately; studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population are homosexual to some degree. Particular aspects have been ] throughout history according to various societies' ]. When praised those aspects have been seen as a way to improve society. When condemned, those homosexual activities were seen as either a sin or a disease, and some homosexual behaviour was ]. Since the second half of the 20th century homosexuality in general has been delisted as a disease<ref></ref> and decriminalized in most developed countries. However, the legal status of homosexuality ] and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are crimes with severe penalties including ]. <p>Many homosexuals hide their feeling and activities out of fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Openly declaring one's homosexual orientation is known as ] or simply "coming out". Starting in the mid-1900s there has been an accelerating trend towards ] for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Nevertheless, ] persists, and in particular young people subjected to it are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide. Terms of ] in current use for homosexual people include '']'' for women, '']'' for men, and '']'' collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all.}} |
|
|
::] (]) 02:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I feel like we're narrowing in on a good lead, but I don't like ''Starting in the mid-1900s''. That would refer to roughly the year 1905, which is not what's intended. "Mid-late 20th century" would work, as would "Late 1960s". I like how you've reworded the homophobia reference and the coming-out language, but I need to think for awhile about your placement of the former. Also, how defensible is the assertion ''When praised those aspects have been seen as a way to improve society''? That's sure to be challenged; can we back it up robustly? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>02:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You are right about the mis-statement. However, thinking about it, the liberation movement actually started in England in the eighteen hundreds and Hirschfeld in Germany at the turn of the century. How about "Starting in the eighteen hundreds in western Europe same-sex love culture began to emerge from the shadows. The trend towards ] for lesbian, gay and bisexual people accelerated in the second half of the twentieth century and continues today."? |
|
|
::::Yes, we can defend the statement with the Greeks and the Japanese. Maybe we can have a collaboration on an article, ]? ] (]) 11:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Ulrichs came before anything in England, and published liberationary pamphlets in the mid-19th century. Then came Edward Carpenter in England, who blended socialism, mysticism and homosexual emancipation, then Hirschfeld in Germany. The more recent homosexual equality movement in England started in the 1950s, followed by the lesbian and gay liberation movements in the 1960's. So, in relation to recent homosexual emancipation, the 1950s would be more accurate in an article on homosexuality (rather than gay lib from the 1960s), but the origins of homosexual emancipation can be traced back to the 1860s. ] (]) 12:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I am thinking of Byron and his circle, William Johnson Cory, Carpenter, and the Uranians, but all these are details. I think as long as we touch upon the nineteenth century as marking the first stirrings of freedom, and the mid-twentieth C as when they began to really gather steam, we will be fine. ] (]) 15:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Rev 6=== |
|
|
{{Quotation|'''Homosexuality''' refers to ] or sexual attraction or ] among members of the same ]. This may be situational, or it may be the expression of an enduring tendency to experience such attractions primarily toward members of one's sex. As a ], homosexuality is considered within the ] of human sexuality,<ref>Existing ref 3</ref> and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.<ref>Existing ref 1</ref><ref>Existing ref 2</ref> <p>Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species.<ref>Reference</ref> The human prevalence of homosexual orientation is difficult to determine accurately; studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population are homosexual to some degree. Throughout history, various societies' ] have ] homosexuality; in the latter case it has been treated as a sin or disease and homosexual behavior ]. Since the second half of the 20th century homosexuality in general has been delisted as a disease<ref></ref> and decriminalized in most developed countries. However, the legal status of homosexuality ] and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are crimes with severe penalties including ]. |
|
|
<p>Many homosexuals hide their feelings and activities for fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Openly declaring one's homosexual orientation is known as ] or simply "coming out". Efforts toward emancipation of homosexuality as presently understood began in the 1860s; since the mid-1950s there has been an accelerating trend towards ] for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Nevertheless, ] persists, and in particular young people subjected to it are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide. Terms of ] in current use for homosexual people include '']'' for women, '']'' for men, and '']'' collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all.}} |
|
|
—<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>20:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to rain on a parade here, but concentrating on the lead of this article is a noble and brave but misguided effort. Leads summarize the content of the article, and this one is long, but that does not mean it is well-researched and comprehensive. Instead, it covers information that dozens or hundreds of editors have decided are important issues, and has gone through a crisis and response kind of editing pattern where reversion and arguments here on the talk page concentrate on a single paragraph, sentence, or source. |
|
|
|
|
|
I was asked to overhaul this article and I declined because it would be a never-ending battle. However, it could probably be done over the course of several months with a group of dedicated editors of any ideological persuasion as long as they had the best sources and writing as their top priority, and agree to certain issues: not to use religious writings to prove scientific theory for example, to give full weight to religious ideas in the appropriate section, and style points like not citing issues more than three times, bumping further cites to a notes section. The lead is the last part of the article that should be written. |
|
|
|
|
|
If you asked several editors who have worked on this article or participated on the talk page to list the most recurring issues on the talk pages, these issues would indicate where the strongest sources are necessary. Get editors to work in twos to build specific sections. There are ten sections right now. Sources, actually should determine how many sections there are. Are there 20 editors who worked on this article and are available to research and write a section? Could the effort to write this article be a model for clusterf*cks that have gone to ArbCom and such? In my wildest dreams. --] (]) 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I must respectfully disagree with you. For one thing, improvement of ''any'' aspect of an article is seldom misguided, even (as is usually the case) there are other aspects of the article also in need of improvement. Most articles on Misplaced Pages are incrementally improved in fits and starts, not according to any prescribed master plan laying out a rigid order of operations to be followed. Certainly we don't delay improvements to the lead, as you seem to be suggesting, simply because the rest of the article is not "finished". Most articles on Misplaced Pages are unfinished; that is the nature of this project. You're more or less right that writing the lead is one of the last steps in producing an article for an ink-on-dead-trees encyclopædia, but ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:You say the lead ''covers information that dozens or hundreds of editors have decided are important issues'', and you're correct. That is known as ], and is a key part of how this project works. You also say this article ''has gone through a crisis and response kind of editing pattern where reversion and arguments here on the talk page concentrate on a single paragraph, sentence, or source'', and you're correct there, too; this is known as the ], and is another aspect of how this project works. This what we're covering is considered by some to be a contentious topic, so the frequency and intensity of discussion and debate are naturally higher than on, say, ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm not entirely sure what to make of your having been asked to overhaul this article and declining because it would've been an endless battle. Sometimes an individual will tackle a major cleanup of an article in need. If the article covers a contentious topic, that individual can become a focal point for intense debate and discussion, but in any case article content, tone, and style are still determined by consensus, and no individual ] the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Finally, the proposed lead in its latest form is fully compliant with the applicable provisions of ], which does not seem to include the concerns you raise here. To wit, the proposal: |
|
|
*serves both as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article, and |
|
|
*stands alone as a concise overview of the article, and |
|
|
*defines the topic, establishes context, explains why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarises the most important points including any notable controversies, and |
|
|
*presents material in rough accord with its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and |
|
|
*is not more than four paragraphs long. |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is to be hoped that the article text as a whole will continue to be gradually improved. However, no good is served by delaying one necessary improvement until a list of other improvements is complete. You have not presented anything to persuade me to discontinue this present effort at lead improvement. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>14:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
::Fundamentally, we are approaching material and article quality from completely separate philosophies. Misplaced Pages allows the bold, revert, discuss style and consensus, but look at where it gets articles that are controversial. It simply does not work. It makes articles incoherent and leads to endless squabbling on talk pages. But it's what the majority of Wikipedians seem to accept as the best that can be done. If I'm the only person on the talk page to say this, then I'm not surprised, but it represents an approach far below what editors are capable of. Instead, it promotes the least common denominator. Volunteers that have access to the best possible and most comprehensive reliable sources are able to set high standards and meet them. There is no reason a group of dedicated and skilled editors would not be able to get this article to FA quality within three months. The discipline, will, and clearly, a common reason to improve the entire article must be in place. This is not the case at this point, unfortunately. |
|
|
::Nevertheless, I wish you luck in this endeavor. My purpose in participating in this discussion was to state that the editors who frequent this article should step back and consider the totality of it as opposed to a section. My response to you is to assert that there higher standards are possible, and the way things are done in most articles is not the way it must be done. --] (]) 15:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I see this as a situation where everyone is right. The concerted group effort is fine if it can coalesce. Tough here, because I would guess that editors on LGBT topics are even more individualistic that the average Wiki editor, and that is saying a lot. Until such a project comes together, the sort of hit-and-run tactic of taking sections one at a time, as we have been doing with the lede, is the next best approach. It's a somewhat Darwinian process, but look where that has got us. ] (]) 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Agree with Haiduc (i.e., with both Moni and Scheinwerfermann). The article as a whole would benefit from a thorough overhaul, and the lede should be rewritten at the end of that process to reflect the new content. Until that happens, significant improvements ''can'' be made in a piecemeal fashion, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be. "Endless squabbling on talk pages" is, imo, vastly preferable to edit wars, which is why I suggested drafting a new lede here. ] (]) 22:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Rev 7=== |
|
|
I would like to merge rev 5 and 6, since I do not see how we can honestly stand by the generalizations that are implied by the unqualified use of the term "homosexual." For example, in the first sentence we claim that H is attraction or behavior. Then we go on to say that H was prohibited. What was prohibited? The attraction? The behavior? What behavior? Kissing and handholding? Raping little boys? The whole thing makes no sense, and is simply a vague blank screen for people to project their personal beliefs and prejudices. Even in the lede, especially in the lede, things must be spelled out as clearly as possible. Let me give this one more try: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Quotation|'''Homosexuality''' refers to ] or sexual attraction or ] among members of the same ]. This may be situational, or it may be the expression of an enduring tendency to experience such attractions primarily toward members of one's sex. As a ], homosexuality is considered within the ] of human sexuality,<ref>Existing ref 3</ref> and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.<ref>Existing ref 1</ref><ref>Existing ref 2</ref> <p>Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species.<ref>Reference</ref> The human prevalence of homosexual orientation is difficult to determine accurately; studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual orientation. Throughout history, individual aspects have been ] according to various societies' ]. When praised those aspects have been seen as a way to improve society.<ref>Politics as friendship By Horst Hutte; p66</ref> When condemned, particular activities were seen as either a sin or a disease, and some homosexual behaviour was ]. Since the second half of the 20th century homosexuality in general has been delisted as a disease<ref></ref> and decriminalized in most developed countries. However, the legal status of homosexual relations ] and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are crimes with severe penalties including ]. <p>Many homosexuals hide their feeling and activities out of fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Openly declaring one's homosexual orientation is known as ] or simply "coming out". Efforts toward emancipation of homosexuality as presently understood began in the 1860s; since the mid-1950s there has been an accelerating trend towards ] for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Nevertheless, ] persists, and in particular young people subjected to it are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide. Terms of ] in current use for homosexual people include '']'' for women, '']'' for men, and '']'' collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 19:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Good point; I like your use of ''homosexual relations'' in the part about legal status. That makes it much clearer. Another part of your proposal, though, seems not to be an improvement. You propose ''The human prevalence of homosexual orientation is difficult to determine accurately''. That's true, but the more encompassing difficulty we're trying to convey is that of determining the prevalence of any/all aspects of '''homosexuality''' (as we define it here) amongst humans, whether it be physical sex amongst same-gender individuals, pursuit of romantic relationships amongst same-gender individuals, open or hidden self-identification as homosexually oriented, or whatever combination or permutation of these. You're correct that it is somewhat difficult to determine the prevalence of '''homosexual orientation''' amongst humans, for some who are thus oriented won't admit it. But that is only a part of the difficulty we're trying to convey, not the whole of it. I think ''The human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately'' does a better job of accurately and completely representing the referent difficulty. |
|
|
|
|
|
:You also propose ''studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual orientation.'' That's not so. The studies, in general, suggest between 2% and 20% of the population exhibit some degree of '''homosexuality''' as we define it here (i.e., romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same gender). A subset of those studies looks at the prevalence and relative strength of declared homosexual orientation, but here again, I think ''some degree of homosexuality'' is the more accurate representation of the totality what we're trying to convey; it includes those who consider themselves basically straight but who have sex with members of the same gender, those who consider themselves 100% homosexual, and everyone in between. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>19:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
::I agree with both observations, please amend accordingly. The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is the absolute implication of that 2 to 20 figure. That does not allow for universal homosexuality, which may well be the rule in most if not all human societies when unencumbered by religious fetters. The 2 to 20 may simply be an irreducible minimum. So I would propose this, "The '''current''' human prevalence of homosexual orientation is difficult to determine accurately; studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual orientation, '''though in many previous cultures homosexual relations were the rule rather than the exception.''' Throughout history, individual aspects have been ] according to various societies' ]." What say you? ] (]) 20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Excellent point on the figures. "The rule rather than the exception" might not be the best way to phrase it, though. How 'bout ''The current human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately. Studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual tendency, though in many previous cultures homosexual relations were extremely common. Throughout history, individual aspects of homosexuality have (...)'' Whatchya think? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:::: I like it. ] (]) 21:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::"Extremely common" is ok, so is "prevalent and normal." We need to convey the universality as well as the centrality of the custom. What do you think? ] (]) 22:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Yeah, that's better. A bit more encyclopedic too. ] (]) 22:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(unindent) I can't help thinking that the first paragraph would be stronger without its second sentence. The "this" is potentially vague, the sentence breaks up the flow, and it just doesn't seem important enough to lead off the article in the way it does. ] (]) 22:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Rev 8=== |
|
|
Incorporating latest suggestions to come up with this latest proposal. '''Haiduc''', I like ''prevalent'' but not ''normal''; this implies that homosexuality is (presently considered) abnormal, which is opposite to the present philosophical trend. '''Rivertorch''', I haven't struck the second sentence altogether, but I've combined it into the first and deëmphasised it. Whatchya think? |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Quotation|'''Homosexuality''' refers to ] or sexual attraction or ] among members of the same ], situationally or in an enduring tendency. As a ], homosexuality is considered within the ] of human sexuality,<ref>Existing ref 3</ref> and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.<ref>Existing ref 1</ref><ref>Existing ref 2</ref> <p>Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species.<ref>Reference</ref> The current human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately. Studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual tendency, though in many previous cultures homosexual relations were extremely prevalent. Throughout history, individual aspects have been ] according to various societies' ]. When praised those aspects have been seen as a way to improve society.<ref>Politics as friendship By Horst Hutte; p66</ref> When condemned, particular activities were seen as either a sin or a disease, and some homosexual behaviour was ]. Since the second half of the 20th century homosexuality in general has been delisted as a disease<ref></ref> and decriminalized in most developed countries. However, the legal status of homosexual relations ] and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are crimes with severe penalties including ]. <p>Many homosexuals hide their feeling and activities out of fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Openly declaring one's homosexual orientation is known as ] or simply "coming out". Efforts toward emancipation of homosexuality as presently understood began in the 1860s; since the mid-1950s there has been an accelerating trend towards ] for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Nevertheless, ] persists, and in particular young people subjected to it are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide. Terms of ] in current use for homosexual people include '']'' for women, '']'' for men, and '']'' collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all.}} —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>23:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Good collaborators, good process, good result. ] (]) 03:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Much better. I wonder if "tendency" might be replaced by either "orientation" or, if that seems too foreshadowy, "disposition". (I won't quote definitions from any particular dictionary, but try looking up the three words and see if you see what I mean.) The rest of it seems quite carefully worded, and nothing jumps out at me in terms of undue weight. One minor point: I'm not 100% sure about the last sentence. The phrasing—"Terms...for homosexual people include..."—suggests that "lesbian", "gay", and "LGBT" are supposed to be nouns, although generally only the first one should be used as a noun (and some people consider that problematic). ] (]) 05:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, 'adjectives' should replace 'terms', as 'gay' as a 'noun' is problematic. Also, LGBT does not collectively refer to people who are 'gay' or 'lesbian', it also includes people who identify as 'bisexual' and 'transgender' (and some include 'intersex'), who are not homosexual and may not identify as 'lesbian' or 'gay' either. So you need to reword this to say that LGBT includes lesbian and gay, rather than being a collective term for homosexual, or leave it out. ] (]) 09:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Rev 9=== |
|
|
'''Rivertorch''', I like your suggestion to replace ''tendency'' by ''disposition'' (''orientation'' is troublesome; please see above). Excellent catch (and you, '''Mish''') on nouns vs. adjectives and imprecision regarding LGBT. Voici: |
|
|
{{Quotation|'''Homosexuality''' refers to ] or sexual attraction or ] among members of the same ], situationally or in an enduring tendency. As a ], homosexuality is considered within the ] of human sexuality,<ref>Existing ref 3</ref> and refers to an individual’s ] based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.<ref>Existing ref 1</ref><ref>Existing ref 2</ref> <p>Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species.<ref>Reference</ref> The current human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately. Studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual disposition, though in many previous cultures homosexual relations were extremely prevalent. Throughout history, individual aspects have been ] according to various societies' ]. When praised those aspects have been seen as a way to improve society.<ref>Politics as friendship By Horst Hutte; p66</ref> When condemned, particular activities were seen as either a sin or a disease, and some homosexual behaviour was ]. Since the second half of the 20th century homosexuality in general has been delisted as a disease<ref></ref> and decriminalized in most developed countries. However, the legal status of homosexual relations ] and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are crimes with severe penalties including ]. <p>Many homosexuals hide their feeling and activities out of fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Openly declaring one's homosexual orientation is known as ] or simply "coming out". Efforts toward emancipation of homosexuality as presently understood began in the 1860s; since the mid-1950s there has been an accelerating trend towards ] for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Nevertheless, ] persists, and in particular young people subjected to it are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide. Adjectives in current use for homosexual people include '']'' for women and '']'' for men—though some prefer other terms or none at all—and homosexual people are included in the broader term '']''.}} —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>13:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
: This reads much better, except that lesbian and gay identified people are included in the acronym LGBT, but not people who are homosexual and do not identify as part of LGBT. This is why I specifically worded in my response as the preferred 'gay' and 'lesbian' to 'homosexual'; if 'homosexual' is used, then this should be qualified as being those who identify as being part of LGBT. For example, radical-feminist and lesbian journalist and writer ] has been very clear that she does not have any wish to be lumped in with a lot of folks defined by odd sexual characteristics as 'LGBT... ', and within the conservative Christian ] movement, people tend to identify themselves as trying to reduce their homosexual ''dispositions'' in contrast to identifying as gay/lesbian or LGBT. ] (]) 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hidden end}} |
|
|
===Rev 10=== |
|
|
It looks like probably the best way forward is to strike ''LGBT'' altogether. There are plenty of links to it elsewhere on the article page. Shall we make it an even ten, then? |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Quotation|'''Homosexuality''' refers to ] or sexual attraction or ] among members of the same ], situationally or in an enduring disposition. As a ], homosexuality is considered to lie within the ] of human sexuality,<ref>Existing ref 3</ref> and refers to an individual’s ] based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.<ref>Existing ref 1</ref><ref>Existing ref 2</ref> <p>Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species.<ref>Reference</ref> The prevalence of homosexuality among humans is difficult to determine accurately. Studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual tendency, though in many earlier cultures homosexual relations were highly prevalent. Throughout history, individual aspects of homosexuality have been ] according to various societies' ]. When praised, those aspects were seen as a way to improve society;<ref>Politics as friendship By Horst Hutte; p66</ref> when condemned, particular activities were seen as a sin or a disease, and some homosexual behavior was ]. Since the middle of the 20th century homosexuality has been gradually delisted as a disease<ref></ref> and decriminalized in most developed countries. However, the legal status of homosexual relations ] and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are crimes with severe penalties including ]. <p>Many homosexual people hide their feelings and activities out of fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Openly declaring one's homosexual orientation is known as ] or simply "coming out". Efforts toward emancipation of homosexuality as it is currently understood began in the 1860s; since the mid-1950s there has been an accelerating trend towards ] for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Nevertheless, ] persists, and in particular young people subjected to it are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide. Adjectives in current use for homosexual people include '']'' for women and '']'' for men, though some prefer other terms or none at all.}}—<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>16:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry if I was unclear. I was suggesting "disposition" for the last word in the first sentence. ] (]) 18:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Sure, why not edit that before anybody else comments, so there is no misunderstanding. ] (]) 18:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Shazam! —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>18:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
Rather than create yet another section, I made some changes to Rev 10 above in the hope that comparing the diff would be easier than other methods. (If anyone wants it in a new section instead, feel free to copy, paste, and revert—it's fine with me.) Most of my changes are of the copyediting sort intended to make the wording clearer, but some do potentially change the perceived meaning. ] (]) 09:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I like your copyedits, and am leaning towards considering them the finishing touches. The traffic at this discussion has slowed considerably, which is making me think we have developed it to the point of consensus for installation of the above as the article's new lead. Any future quibbles or questions can be decided in new discussions here on the talk page — what do you think? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>16:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
::I agree. We might give it a little longer and see if anyone else has thoughts. (It being Monday and all.) ] (]) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Sure thing (and it's not just Monday, it's also ]). Let's give it another day or so, then go live if no big objections come forth. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Looks pretty good to me. ] (]) 22:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Re the recent 'second half' → 'middle' change, is the listed ref supposed to support this point? ] (]) 01:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
My minor tweaks just now were purely grammatical — One cannot properly say ''since the second half of'' (whatever time period). Either ''In the second half of'' or ''Since the middle of'' is fine, though because the delisting and decriminalisation has continued into the 21st century, only ''Since the middle of the 20th century'' is an accurate description of the timeframe. As for your question regarding the ref, I think it probably ought to be removed and not replaced; as discussed ↑above↑, the detailed discussion and supporting refs are best contained in the main article text. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>03:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Agreed. One final question from me: should we use consistent spelling throughout the article? I personally don't care whether it follows American or Canadian/British conventions, and I'm not even bothered when an article flips back and forth, but the guidelines suggest internal consistency. (E.g., Rev 10 contains both ''behaviour'' and ''decriminalized''.) ] (]) 03:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It also contained both ''behavior'' and ''behaviour''. I've arbitrarily modified this for the initial occurrence (Am. spelling). ] (]) 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Yeah, that'll've probably been my fault; having lived outside the U.S. for awhile, it's now an effort to remember to use U.S. spellings when that's appropriate. Good catch. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:The change was not purely grammatical. 'Since the middle' much more strongly suggests a shift occurring in mid century than does the prior revision (however grammatically dubious). A possible (but awkward) replacement might be 'Starting in the second half of'. ] (]) 20:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Well, we can't say it was delisted "starting in the second half of the 20th century", since the delisting itself was ephemeral. We could try splitting the sentence into two sentences, the delisting and the decriminalization, I suppose. My brain is operating at reduced power today. Want to have a go? ] (]) 21:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::<s>I don't wish to get into a grammatical pissing match; go see Strunk & White or Funk & Wagnall.</s> I've added "gradually" to convey the temporally spread-out nature of the delisting and decriminalisation without resorting to syntactic contortions. We could easily substitute ''progressively'' if that is thought to be preferable '''Dhilvert''', I trust this addresses your unhappiness? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>23:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I'd be happiest to see edits occurring directly in the article, and I see no reason why Rev. 10 as it stands could not be substituted in, but as for the above, '''Rivertorch''' might be right to suggest that the two points be handled separately. Not only does ] mention decriminalization starting prior to the middle of the century, but there are examples of decriminalization occurring even earlier (e.g., in Japan). Alternatively, some sort of vague language such as ''In recent history'' could be used to refer to decriminalization and delisting considered together. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::If you do remove the delisting reference from the text (as discussed earlier), it would be nice to add it somewhere else in the article. (If it is already there, then I have missed it.) --] (]) 00:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've quite a few quibbly points with Rev 10, are all previous revs done already? And how do you wish new input to go? Just edit the draft or write out each one or something else? ] 01:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Copy, paste, and edit box, and then we can slug it out. --] (]) 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hmm, seems ironically fruitless, once we're only discussing one version I'll be happy to rejoin. I really can't cope discussing four versions at once. ] 21:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Can't we just put this in and squibble over the little details later? ] (]) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::'''Benjiboi''', I'm not sure where your confusion is coming from. We are discussing only one version. The point of keeping the various revs is to make the conversation more efficient, not to create competing versions of proposed leads. Each new rev supersedes the previous, but the previous is not deleted. This way, everyone can see how the discussion has progressed without having to slog through diffs and revision histories. The last tweaks to Rev 10 have been minor housekeeping type fixes; we appear to have (contextually) broad consensus to insert Rev 10 as it presently stands as the new lead, and so I am going to do so now. Of course, like the rest of the article, it will be subject to continued discussion and improvement by consensus. |
|
|
::::'''Dhilvert''': Yes. The ref's a good one, it just wants placing more aptly. I'll see to that in the lead-replacement edit I'm about to make. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>23:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
Well it seems now only Rev 10 is showing, so do I change the text to what I think it should be or present new wording? Or do I do something else? ] 11:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:All previous revs can still be viewed; up at the top of this section you'll see "Compacted discussion through Rev 9", and by clicking the adjacent '''Show''' button, you'll expand all the previous discussion. At any time, you or I or anyone else can put up another revision (it would in this case be Rev 11) for comment, but it sounds like the best way to start would be for you to present your ideas as comments here in this present thread so they can be discussed. What do you find objectionable about the lead as it presently stands in the article, and why, and what would you prefer, and why? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>14:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Rev 11=== |
|
|
I've copied and pasted below the edit of '''Phoenix of9''', since this seems to have become the ''de facto'' revision 11. The associated edit comment reads: "''situationally is covered by "behaviour". Pathological models were non existant b4 19th century. Please do no delete and/or's. Orientation def was incomplete''" (edit comment of '''Phoenix of9''') --] (]) 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Quotation|'''Homosexuality''' refers to ] and/or sexual attraction and/or ] among members of the same ]. As a ], homosexuality is considered to lie within the ] of human sexuality,<ref> {{cite web|url=http://apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31 |title=APA Help Center - Health & Emotional Wellness - "Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" |accessdate=2009-07-26 |date=2007 |publisher=American Psychological Association }}</ref> and refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to" people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."<ref name="apahelp">{{citation |url=http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31 |title=Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality |periodical=]HelpCenter.org |accessdate=]}}</ref><ref name=amici></ref> <p>Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species. The prevalence of homosexuality among humans is difficult to determine accurately; studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual potential, though in many earlier cultures homosexual relations were highly prevalent. Throughout history, individual aspects of homosexuality have been ] according to various societies' ]. When praised, those aspects were seen as a way to improve society;<ref>Politics as friendship By Horst Hutte; p66</ref> when condemned, particular activities were seen as a sin or a disease, and some homosexual behavior was ]. Between late 19th century and middle of the 20th century, homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder but due to failure of scientific studies to support this position, it was delisted from mental disorders list. Homosexual relations were decriminalized in most countries during the second half of 20th century but other rights of homosexual people ] and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are crimes with severe penalties including ]. <p>Many homosexual people hide their feelings and activities out of fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Openly declaring one's homosexual orientation is known as ] or simply "coming out". Efforts toward emancipation of homosexuality as it is currently understood began in the 1860s; since the mid-1950s there has been an accelerating trend towards ] for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Nevertheless, ] persists, and in particular young people subjected to it are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide. Adjectives in current use for homosexual people include '']'' for women and '']'' for men, though some prefer other terms or none at all.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Most notably, I think the and/or should go. There comes a point at which additional precision doesn't help the reader, and I think this is one of those times. Also, while ''situationally'' might be encompassed within ''behavior'', it is not implied by it, so I think the former should be kept. --] (]) 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree, "and/or" worsens rather than improving anything. I see additional problems with this proposal, as well. Relative to Rev 10, its wording is awkward and ungrammatical and flows poorly. The newly-proposed text… |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Quotation|Between late 19th century and middle of the 20th century, homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder but due to failure of scientific studies to support this position, it was delisted from mental disorders list. Homosexual relations were decriminalized in most countries during the second half of 20th century (…)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
…is especially problematic; it undoes a carefully-constructed description of the timeframe in which homosexuality was delisted and decriminalised, and replaces it with the assertion ''it was delisted from mental disorders list''. This is not only ungrammatical, but provides no information regarding timeframe. The following assertion ''(…)decriminalized in most countries during the second half of 20th century'' is likewise ungrammatical, and also less historically accurate than the present lead text. India, for example, just decriminalised homosexual behaviour a few weeks ago, well into the 21st century. |
|
|
|
|
|
As for the proposal to change ''some homosexual tendency'' to ''some homosexual potential'', I must disagree with this one, as well. "Homosexual tendency" clearly and accurately describes the phenomenon at hand. "Homosexual potential" seems vague and not readily definable; certainly we haven't defined it here and I don't see an advantage to defining it so as to be able to use it, given that it will still be less precise and less accurate than ''tendency''. Moreover, the phrase ''homosexual potential'' could be construed to have negative connotations.—<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>20:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:India is not most countries. Most countries mean a numerical majority. As for grammar, you can correct it. However, your version is incorrect as it implies that homosexuality was considered a disease until 20th century. This is incorrect. Disease/mental disorder view started in 19th century, not 1000 BC. Please stop reverting to a faulty lead. "Homosexual tendency" has more negative connotations. ] (]) 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm not sure why you refer to "my version". What is under discussion is the ''consensus'' lead text, developed with the coöperative participation of many editors (including you) over the course of more than a week's discussion. Your position is that the consensus version of the lead is "faulty", but so far you are the only one who seems to think so. That doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but — at least for the moment — it means your position is against consensus. I'm glad you're now discussing the matter here on the talk page, but it's regrettable you continue to insert your preferred text (which at this time has no consensus behind it) in the article lead, topped with belligerent edit summaries and judgements of other editors. That's not helpful behaviour, and it's not in accord with ]. On contentious articles like this one especially, we discuss and agree nontrivial changes on the talk page before adding them to the article. Can you see how the way you're doing it is not in line with that practice? Can you see how it could be seen as tendentious? Can you see how it begins to edge towards running afoul of ]? |
|
|
|
|
|
::You're certainly right that India is not most countries. Can you explain the advantage you see in using language that ''reduces'' the precision and accuracy of the lead? |
|
|
|
|
|
::I think I understand your concern about how the lead presents the chronology of pathological classification of homosexuality. And yes, I've read the article. Here's a problem I see: the article contains the assertion ''he first attempts to classify homosexuality as a disease were made by the fledgling European sexologist movement in the late 19th century.'' However, this assertion is wholly '''unsupported''' and therefore not presently ]. If you or anyone else can provide some ] sources with which to support the assertion, terrific! If not, then we need to look at rewording or removing the unsupported, questionable assertion. It's important at times like this to keep in mind that the standard for inclusion in a Misplaced Pages article is not what we know, or think we know—it's what we can ''prove''. |
|
|
|
|
|
::That said, I am not in favour of the use of a lengthy quote in the lead. We're ''writing'' an encyclopædia here; it's best if we write our own text. The use of a quote in this location doesn't seem, to me, to do a better descriptive or definitive job than the text we, as editors, devised on our own with ''support'' from reliable sources. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Agreed regarding the quote; it seems generally awkward. If there is a different way of addressing the concern raised by '''Phoenix of9''' regarding the ''identity'' part of the definition, then a change to Rev 10 might be in order, but otherwise the Rev 10 text seems to be better in this area. --] (]) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I don't see that Rev 10 "implies that homosexuality was considered a disease until 20th century". I guess it might be read that way, but it seems to me that would require some serious reading between the lines (i.e., synthesis) on the part of the reader. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Suppose we change "homosexual tendency" to simply "homosexuality"? That is admittedly less precise, but it is true that "tendency" has negative connotations. ("Disposition" worked rather well in another place, but we don't want to overuse it.) |
|
|
|
|
|
::''<small>Inserted later because I forgot before:</small>'' "And/or" is an awkward construction that is frowned upon in most contexts (see ] and other sources). It may not be avoidable everywhere in the article, but it absolutely should not be in the lede.''<small>] (]) 22:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</small>'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::About India, considering it accounts for about one-sixth of the world's population, I'd say that its attitudes toward homosexuality are highly relevant when writing an article with global scope, like this one. Not sure if India is considered a "developed country" at this point or if that's entirely subjective or what. (My understanding of the recent court decision is will have no immediate effect on the nationwide state of affairs—i.e., homosexuality has not been decriminalized in India—but that it may open the door to national decriminalization in the long run.) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Several editors have wondered about the wisdom of rewriting the lede here rather than in article space. It was originally my suggestion, so blame me if you're finding the process cumbersome or confusing. My intention was two-fold: to keep the previous lede (for which there was consensus) of a high-visibility article stable while revisions were made and a new consensus formed, and to minimize the likelihood of highly disruptive edit wars which are likely to form when major changes are made. I agree with Scheinwerfermann that we appeared to have consensus for Rev 10. That doesn't mean that it couldn't or shouldn't be further improved, but I can't help thinking that if the changes had been proposed here first, we all would have had a nice drama-free day. ] (]) 22:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I agree with the point about stability and edit wars - can I suggest we revert the lead back to prior the revision, work on a new consensus for the revision, and have the problems laid out comprehensively and comprehensibly, and try again? ] (]) 22:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
How does this work? |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Quotation|Homosexuality was created as a neurological or psychiatric disorder towards the end of the 19th century, for people who had a preference for sex with members of the same sex; towards the end of the 20th century, homosexuality became regarded as a normal variation of human sexuality that did not require treatment, and was removed from diagnostic and classification systems for psychiatric disorders. Homosexual relations also became decriminalized in most developed countries from the late 1960s onwards (…)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Etiology == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm reverting Jjk's change of this section heading. It's true that "causes" is a simpler word and thus may be clearer for the casual reader, but I don't think it's more accurate. While "etiology" ''can'' mean "causes" (specifically in terms of a disease or medical condition, which doesn't work for the topic of this article), it also means "the investigation or attribution of the cause or reason for something, often expressed in terms of historical or mythical explanation", which works pretty well here as a definition. Nothing''causes'' homosexuality any more than anything ''causes'' heterosexuality. The section in question deals quite specifically with investigations and explanations of why some people are homosexual, and "etiology" describes the content of the section well enough. ] (]) 19:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am inclined to agree with your reversion. ''Causes'' can be seen to have negative connotations, where ''etiology'' is more neutral. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>20:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
::How about "origins", to keep it more accessible? ] (]) 23:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I like that even better: Nice and neutral like ''etiology'', nice and accessible like ''causes''. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>00:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I don't know. ''Origins of the epidemic. Origins of the Cold War. Origins of World War I. Origins of bipedal hominids.'' It suggests that homosexuality can be traced back to some definable genesis, but is there any evidence that that is so? "Etiology" makes sense because it indicates investigation or attribution, which is precisely what the section goes on to describe. ] (]) 04:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You've a point there. Really, I'm okeh with ''etiology'' or with ''origins'' or with ''roots'', but not with ''causes''. We may want to provide a discreet link (perhaps a wiktionary link ]), though it appears Wikt defines ætiology as "The study of causes or origins". —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>05:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
Origins has a different meaning to etiology. Etiology is fine. ] (]) 09:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 'homosexuals', 'heterosexuals' and 'non-heterosexuals' == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have edited these references, as using terms such as these as nouns is deprecated ], |
|
|
, |
|
|
, |
|
|
, |
|
|
, |
|
|
, etc. ] (]) 12:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Good work, thanks for that. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>14:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Good intentions == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am glad that my , but I think there is a problem if we do not put in the sub-headings, since we have a "Main Article" template for the section referring us to "Same-sex relationships" and then the second (of two) paragraphs in the section is discussing not same-sex relationships, but opposite-sex relationships. What is this section supposed to be about?--] (]) 11:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Your changes to the text strike me as improvements, but I don't think the subheadings are necessary. The section is ''primarily'' about same-sex relationships. ] (]) 18:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Non-consensus edits to lead == |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Phoenix of 9''', with you unilaterally made substantial changes to a consensus lead developed through extensive discussion in which you yourself participated. That certainly doesn't mean the new lead is untouchable, but it does make your unilateral changes seem uncoöperative and less than productive. If you have concerns about the present lead language, let's please discuss them here on the talk page and see if consensus develops to make further adjustments. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>18:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:I was bold. The concerns were in the edit summary. You just reverted w/o addressing any of them. Can you not read? "situationally is covered by "behaviour". Pathological models were non existant b4 19th century. Please do no delete and/or's. Orientation def was incomplete" ] (]) 18:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::You're right, I did revert, because you made a unilateral change against consensus, without first discussing it and building new consensus. Boldness is best tempered by thoughtful consideration: This is a contentious topic, and the lead was developed through very extensive discussion, so just up and changing it without discussion really isn't helpful, and "I was bold" really isn't very responsive or coöperative. The talk page here, and not the edit summary, is the right place to discuss changes. "Can you not read?" isn't a helpful remark. I did read your edit summary, and it seemed uncomfortably close to ]. Please raise your concerns here in complete sentences and let's see how the collaborative discussion goes. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>19:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I don't understand ""situationally is covered by "behaviour". Could you clarify what you mean? ] (]) 18:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Scheinwerfermann, |
|
|
|
|
|
::::1) Your refusal to understand is also counter productive and not helpful. Referring to MPOV here seems like a personal attack. This is also counter productive and not helpful. Please see ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::2) "Pathological models were non existant b4 19th century." means that your lead is incorrect as it implies that homosexuality was considered a disease until 20th century. This is incorrect. Disease/mental disorder view started in 19th century, not 1000 BC. Do you finally get it? |
|
|
|
|
|
::::3) Tendency to potential. A word change. What part do you not comprehend? |
|
|
|
|
|
::::4) "Orientation def was incomplete" means that orientation definition was incomplete. Currently the lead is like this: "As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is considered to lie within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum of human sexuality, and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.". |
|
|
|
|
|
::::As a sexual orientation, homosexuality does not ONLY refer to an individual’s identity. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::5) Situational sexual behaviour is sexual behaviour. People who engage in "situational homosexual behaviour" are still engaging in homosexual behaviour even if they do not consider their orientation to be homosexual. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::6) Please do not ] the article. Do not make unnecessary reverts behind the mask of upholding a consensus. ] (]) 19:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your accusational, confrontational tone is neither productive nor warranted, and I will not engage with you at that level. Let's try for a civil discussion about the language in the lead. |
|
|
|
|
|
You're right, of course, that ''situational'' homosexual behaviour is a subset of homosexual behaviour in general. Looking back through the discussion by which the present lead was devised, it seems to me the word ''situational'' is not redundant as you appear to consider it; placed as it is, it serves to clarify that some people engage in homosexual behaviour even though they do not consider themselves homosexually oriented. |
|
|
|
|
|
You're also right that homosexuality as an orientation doesn't refer merely to an individual's identity; the present lead language does not make such a claim. It does give context to the term and refers to our main article on sexual orientation, which seems appropriate given that the lead's job is to give a summary overview of the contents of this present article. ''Sexual orientation'' does not lend itself to a quick one-liner definition, which is why we refer the reader to the main article on that subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to learn more of your thoughts regarding what you perceive as a problem with the wording regarding pathology. You say pathological models were nonexistent before the 19th century; can you reliably support this? What change, specifically, would you favour for this part of the lead's wording? |
|
|
|
|
|
Your point #3 does not make sense to me, for the word ''potential'' you seem to object to does not appear in the lead. Perhaps you meant to comment on the relative merits of ''tendency'' vs. ''disposition''; if so, please refer to ↑the discussion on that very matter↑.—<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>20:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Can we discuss this ]? --] (]) 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Scheinwerfermann, again, your refusal to understand is also counter productive and not helpful. "Tendency to potential" I changed tendency to potential. Whats your problem with that? You also said: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{u|Octanvui}} – is improper. Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, not primary source studies. You've also inserted your own improper conclusions from a GWAS study. |
|
::"I'd like to learn more of your thoughts regarding what you perceive as a problem with the wording regarding pathology. You say pathological models were nonexistent before the 19th century; can you reliably support this? What change, specifically, would you favour for this part of the lead's wording?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A modest 'genetic' influence on a trait is irrelevant to the cause. It does not prove the influence of social environment or nurture, as you assert. For example, the genetic influence on left handedness is low, but we know the environmental influence on left handedness is due to non-social mechanisms, such as hormones in the womb, or randomness in how the brain grows. |
|
::It seems that you havent even read psychology section in this article. Why are you editing the lead if you even havent read the article. ] (]) 20:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As the clarifies, the non-social environment is the important part here, especially for males. |
|
::::Please adopt a less combative, more coöperative tone. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>20:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Examples of non-social environment include the prenatal hormones that differentiate male and female brains, as well as which have been implicated. Alternatively, things might be trace back to an outside of genes interacting with prenatal hormones. ] (]) 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::Please read the article first if you want to improve it. ] (]) 20:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: {{u|Octanvui}} OK, I will add this link about this studies , they said “ This means that non-genetic factors - such as environment, upbringing, personality, nurture - are far more significant in influencing a person's choice of sexual partner, just as with most other personality, behavioral and physical human traits”. Is this ok?] (]) 08:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, a journalist’s article (which is a misinterpretation of the Ganna study) isn’t sufficient for a complex topic like this. I’ve already linked you the academic Bailey review clarifying the point. A genetic study does not tell you what type of environment affects a trait. As I've already said, plenty of traits present from birth (left handedness, cleft lip) show weak genetic effects. It would be illogical to conclude that these are due to upbringing simply because of a modest genetic effect. ] (]) 08:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{u|Octanvui}} Ok, this is new link - (Nature journal ) - "Ganna and his colleagues also used the analysis to estimate that up to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors". They only wrote "the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors", I think this is ok] (]) 09:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We don't cite news articles authored by journalists, over more robust academic reviews by experts on the topic. But to clarify, the Ganna team never say this proves social influence on sexual orientation. They do note how social acceptance would allow those with same-sex attractions to engage in same sex behaviour. This is because the GWAS is not a study of homosexual orientation, it is a GWAS of people who ''engaged in one same-sex act in their life''. So no, that isn't suitable and lacks context. But it does seem like you are potentially engaging in bad faith here. "Environmental" can obviously include non-social environmental factors. ] (]) 10:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] is an obvious bad faith LTA sock. SPI report will be filed. ] (]) 10:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{abot}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
How 'bout we both go have a nice ], keep in mind that we're all interested in improving this article (probably none of us is interested in spoiling it), and talk productively about what adjustments to the lead might be warranted and supported by consensus? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>20:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Dionian(ism)}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> --] ] 02:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*Where on earth did this come from? In one sliver of the academic universe, dionism can mean the ''opposite'' of homosexuality -- dionism is in opposition to uranism, an historic word for gayness as well as what we'd now call bromance, aka non-sexual male-male love. There is literally no way that term should redir here! Ta, ] (]) 14:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
*:You can retarget. This redirect is older than ] page. ] (]) 06:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Request to Change Article== |
|
: What am I missing here? This was posted up here through ten revisions, then located in place when there appeared to be a consensus. Why was this not discussed beforehand? The way you phrase your point about pathology is unclear - not being considered a pathology before 19th Century means before 19th Century, not 20th Century. Would you prefer it said that it became considered a disease in the 19th Century? OK - but before the 19th Century it was not homosexuality, it was sodomy, it was men having sex with men, not homosexuality, so while homosexual acts occurred before the 19th Century, and forms of culture that today would be called 'gay', homosexuality itself only came into being in the 19th Century, as a pathology, so before the 19th Century, homosexuality as a pathology did not exist - sodomy as a crime did. The tone is unnecessarily aggressive, especially when you could have made any comments you wanted before this point. ] (]) 22:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{hat|Whether or not this was ever a serious request for a change, it has devolved into an excuse to waste people's time with off-topic ] advocacy and nothing productive can come of continuing with it.}} |
|
|
Please remove gender from the definition, sex is what's important here; that is the one thing that, even now, determines whether or not a child can be created without outside help. A trans woman and a cis man can never, no matter how hard they try, create an embryo on their own. The same applies to trans men and cis women. If you don't believe me believe AI, "Yes, sex is a fundamental aspect of defining homosexuality, as it refers to the sexual or romantic attraction an individual has towards people of the same sex; therefore, when discussing homosexuality, the concept of sex is inherently involved." <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:What source says that this should be removed? The second and third sources use both sex and gender. ―<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 04:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
First off, I would like to return to a peaceful mode of discussion, I think it has worked very well until now. As for the comments above, some feedback. |
|
|
|
::Google AI. ] (]) 05:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
#Pathological models predate the year 1000. Avicenna discussed pathics in that light, see ''The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology'' By Mark D. Jordan, pp119-120. I seem to remeber something about Aristotle too, comparing pathics with people with other compulsions, like eating dirt, hair tugging, or chewing fingernails, but I am not in my office and have no refs at the moment. (I am using archaic terminology advisedly). |
|
|
|
::Google AI and we as people. Gender is a purely social aspect, it has no place in an article about what individuals feel and how they are "so-called different". Sex is what a person is born as and can't change even with trans treatment. ] (]) 05:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
#The removal of situational from the first sentence foregrounds orientation too much. |
|
|
|
:::What ] says that. ] ] 05:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
#The repetition of the characteristics in the second sentence is redundant and not good style. |
|
|
|
::::All of these: https://www.google.com/search?q=is+gender+socially+constructed&oq=is+gender+soci&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgBEAAYgAQyBwgCEAAYgAQyBwgDEAAYgAQyBggEEEUYOTIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDINCAgQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAkQABiGAxiABBiKBdIBCDc4NjNqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 |
|
#''Potential'' in the second para is probably a better choice than ''tendency'', which slightly medicalizes things. |
|
|
|
::::Even with these, this article is about (or can be about) every single person in and around the world; with something that is inside us you can't believe what other people say, they aren't you. This article is about emotions, attraction, friendship, colleagues, and society. Every single thing that makes up who we are as people. ] (]) 05:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
#The discussion of ''other rights'' misses the point and is misleading. What is criminalized are certain behaviors. --] (]) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::And on the changing sex part there's these. https://www.google.com/search?q=can+you+change+your+sex&oq=can+you+change+your+sex&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyCQgAEEUYORiABDINCAEQABiRAhiABBiKBTIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCDg3MTNqMGo5qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 ] (]) 05:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Please review ] ] ] 06:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Ok, then these. https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1 |
|
|
::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/Social_construction_of_gender |
|
|
::::::https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Gender_Studies/Sexuality_the_Self_and_Society_(Ruhman_Bowman_Jackson_Lushtak_Newman_and_Sunder)/05%3A_Gender_Identity_Gender_Roles_and_Gender_Differences/5.07%3A_Social_Construction_of_Gender#:~:text=Scholars%20generally%20regard%20gender%20as,peer%20groups%2C%20and%20mass%20media. ] (]) 17:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::And these. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/procedures/gender-affirmation-surgery |
|
|
:::::::https://can-sg.org/frequently-asked-questions/can-humans-change-sex/ |
|
|
:::::::https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/sex-reassignment-doesnt-work-here-the-evidence |
|
|
:::::::https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/new-york-times-reveals-painful-truths-about-sex-change-surgery ] (]) 17:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Also this written by a mayor's office of lgbtq rights and office of human rights. It states "sex and gender are often used interchangeably; however they are not the same thing. Whereas sex has a biological basis, gender is a social construct." "Sex is a medical classification made based on a person's internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, chromosomes, and gonads." "Gender refers to the social and cultural differences a society assigns people based on an individual's biological(assigned at birth) sex. These differences are usually split into norms, behaviors, and roles that are associated with being biologically male or biologically female." |
|
|
::::::::https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publication/attachments/Words%20Matter%20Sexual%20OrientationMay232024.pdf ] (]) 17:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
We’re getting incessant redundant requests complaining about the definition including gender. Therefore a FAQ is in order. It should obviously include “why does it describe the sex/gender thing etc.” (in more formal terminology of course) but what should the answer be? Dronebogus (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Currently, the history section reads: "Some scholars argue that the term "homosexuality" is problematic when applied to ancient cultures since, for example, neither Greeks or Romans possessed any one word covering the same semantic range as the modern concept of "homosexuality""
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A modest 'genetic' influence on a trait is irrelevant to the cause. It does not prove the influence of social environment or nurture, as you assert. For example, the genetic influence on left handedness is low, but we know the environmental influence on left handedness is due to non-social mechanisms, such as hormones in the womb, or randomness in how the brain grows.
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why does this article define homosexuality as "romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender"?
A1: Because that is how high-quality reliable sources define it.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
The redirect Dionism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2 § Dionian(ism) until a consensus is reached. --MikutoH 02:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)