Jump to content

Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Not sure how to put this

The list of what science has shown does not cause homosexuality is odd. Does it need something about what that leaves? Also, the tone is all a bit negative - as if homosexuality is some kind of problem that might have a cause. There needs to be some balance here, otherwise the article is in danger of hiding some implicit POV assumptions. The neutral POV is that some people of the same sex enjoy having relationships and sex with one another, and that has been a problem for some people in the past, and they have tried to find 'causes' in an effort to find 'treatments' - but finding 'causes' (as with 'treatments') has proven elusive. With regards to 'cures' specifically, these have generally been ineffective, tending either to produce people incapable of having sex or relationships, or people who despite treatment still enjoy having sex or relations with people of the same sex. Mish (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific about which sections/paragraphs you take issue with? I'm not sure which 'list' you are referring to. Hadrian89 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The final paragraph in the lead. It seems very negative. Needs balance. Mish (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Look at it this way:

"The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.[19]"

OK.

"The current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual."

OK

"There is no scientific evidence that parenting, sexual abuse, other adverse life events, or early childhood experiences influence sexual orientation;[20][21]"

Do we need to say what scientists say it isn't - when there is no counterpoint to this that gives any theories about why some people are homosexual?

"those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice.[22]"

So, we refute what does not cause it, without suggesting if there is an alternative view, and point out these views were based on prejudice. I'm not sure any of this needs to be in the lead - but if it does, then the sentence needs to be reversed along these lines:

"Early theories about the causes of homosexuality were based on ignorance, prejudice, bias and misunderstanding; these included beliefs that parenting, early childhood experiences, sexual abuse, and other adverse life events, influenced sexual orientation. There is no scientific evidence for these, rather, current theories suggest..., and that this is a normal human variation."

Then

"No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation."

Again, this starts on a negation of something not suggested. So.

"Historically, efforts to change sexual orientation were fruitless or damaging, and the consensus is that homosexuality is a normal human variation, the need for change and the possibility of change is not seen as warranted by professional health organisations. None have sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most have policy statements directed at professonials and the public advising caution in relation to treatments claiming to change sexual orientation."

The existing sources would all seem to support this clarification & rearrangement. Mish (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think MishMich is on to something here. His proposal places older theories in their appropriate context and his proposal seems to read much more clearly. Franklin Moore (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. Hadrian89 (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I just made an edit, based on what I'd read of this discussion last night, but without properly reading Mishmich's more recent proposals. Apologies! This was bad behaviour born of too little care and attention. Anyway, I think my changes are along the same lines as those proposed here, so hopefully you won't object too much. Needless to say, I won't object if you feel the changes suggested on this talk page have more consensus behind them than my own, and edit the introduction accordingly. garik (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, I have added my second revision at the end of the paragraph. What it replaces does not appear to have a reference, but I seem to recall that originally it would have had. This is dealt with in the APA etc. position statements, but I don't have time to dig out links to things that I have already found and used as sources in the past - but have now somehow been lost. This was the problem with replacing other links with the Amicus brief - a lot of good sources got lost in the process. At the same time, I don't want to swamp the lead. If anybody has the appropriate links handy (they may already be in the text above), perhaps they could insert them, please? The content is not substantially altered, just the context. Mish (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. Theres lots of duplicate info however. Phoenix of9 01:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Garcia-Falgueras-and-Swaab study edit

I separated the abstract's conclusion from the main text because it appears unsupported by the antecedent within the abstract and unlikely that it could be. Pediatrics excludes adulthood and the abstract assumes nothing else, not even in neuroendocrinology, could matter in adolescence. (I've requested a copy of the full article that was abstracted.) The antecedent is useful for the sexual orientation article, so I copied it to there, but if it supports what the authors conclude then all the studies on sexual orientation demographics should be trashed and not just in WP, since by the conclusion only prenatal (and maybe neonatal) chemistry should be the basis of sexual orientation surveys, and I doubt most of the relevant scientists would agree. The conclusion is, at any rate, in the endnote in WP. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WTF???

'Both gays and lesbians may have reasons for their respective sexual orientations..."...Also, I like the fact that women can't rape each other...."...' [1]

What is that quote soup and why wasnt it deleted? Phoenix of9 01:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That is an old revision - I edited this to read lesbians, as the source solely dealt with lesbians, and gay men were not mentioned. It stands in contrast to the bulk of the article being about gay men's homosexuality - a lot of which is completely irrelevant to lesbians. I commend your diligence, and hope you will be as dilligent in ensuring that the bulk of the article's focus on male homosexuality becomes balanced with an equivalent level detail on female homosexuality. Mish (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

material removed

A section on self-reports of lesbian understanding has been removed without discussion. Granted it was mostly quotation and a single source, given that the majority of articles treats homosexuality from a male perspective, the concpet of WP:WEIGHT would suggest something is said about how lesbians see themselves - especially as many reject the whole project of biological and other explanations, looking to a more reflexive understanding of how they come to be the way they are.

If this material is not restored, either intact or as a summary of the responses in the source, or something else put in that relects the experience and understanding of lesbians, then I will be placing an appropriate tag to highlight the lack of balance evident in this article - and I will not let it go until this matter is addressed properly.Mish (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As the topic of the article is homosexuality, certainly equal weight should be placed on discussions about Lesbians as is for Gay men. Much of the material relates to sexual orientation not being a choice, and sources that back that concept up. Of course, those apply to all homosexuals, as well as heterosexuals and other orientations.
You can understand how the information you added, which focused on people (in this case lesbians) explaining why they "choose" their sexual orientation to not fit in well. "In a U.S.-based 1970s mail survey by Shere Hite, lesbians self-reported their reasons for being lesbian." The article requires NPOV, however, when you look at the citation and see it is from the 70's, when sexual orientation was then mistakenly thought to be a choice, rather than biological, it seems clear that the quote does not belong there. It could be useful in a section discussing that sexual orientation was once studied from the perspective of being a personal choice. I think that is of limited use though, and not in the context of the quote you put in.
Looking through the article, my view as a feminist, I have to say that the article does not seem to weight heavily towards gay males rather than lesbians. It discusses in most cases, homosexuality in general, and does not seem unduly weighted. Atom (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
First, I did not add it, I am concerned that it is being removed. Much of the material about sexual orientation not being a choice is derived from studies of gay males - data derived from gay males does not necessarily apply to lesbians, and to suggest that it does is WP:SYNTH. As a feminist, I am sure you will appreciate that the viewpoint expressed in the Hite report is still held by many - and I have not come across feminist discourse which argues an essentialist viewpoint that lesbianism is in some way innate. I am not clear how you can draw conclusions about homosexuality in general based on research primarily carried amongst males. That is why it is important to ensure that the alternate discourse is included - if discussion from the 1970's is seen as 'old school' lesbian feminism, then it needs to be replaced by more recent lesbian feminist discourse. I can suggest a number of names you might like to consider to present that perspective, however, I am not clear that Hite's participants are that much different. If there are studies addressing the lesbian gene, I would be grateful if you can point me to them, but it would be unsound for us to make out here that there is a lesbian gene, just because of the effort (often gay male) scientists have gone to in order to show that there is a gay male gene. My impression is that many lesbians still do not care whether there is some biological reason, that all forms of sexuality are socially constructed regardless of biology, and that it is irrelevant. Without any evidence to show otherwise, this perspective on homosexuality should not be omitted. Mish (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S., I just looked at the article on Lesbianism, and that confirms my suspicion. Perhaps this article needs to be renamed Male homosexuality? That already serves as a redirect to here, unlike Homosexuality, female which is a redirect to Lesbianism. Mish (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
MishMish, you can not act as a reliable secondary source interpreting primary sources. See Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. The claims about sexuality not being a choice is backed up with several highly credible sources. Let them to do analysis of primary sources and conclusions based on them. If they states aboout sexual orientation generally, then they consider the research as reliable for both men and women. --Destinero (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, please address my comments, not something else. This article is about male homosexuality, and is itself WP:SYNTHESIS, because it extrapolates reseach on into male homosexuality to females - which is illustrated quite clearly by the fact that the article on lesbianism bears no relationship to this article whatsoever. Either replace those reliable sources here that deal with female homosexual experience, or rename the article Male homosexuality. Mish (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I see your point, and I am concerned about your point. It certainly is food for thought. My view had been that homosexuality is caused by biological factors (largely genetics), and that on top of that, some number of people may choose to be homosexuals because of environmental factors, and that for lesbians, much larger numbers may choose it than is the case with male homosexuals. Or, possibly it may be true that it is largely genetically linked for males, and that link does not exist at all for females. (A Y chromosome factor?) The problem with all of these is that (as far as I know) there is no research, and unless we can show reliable research or sources, we can't suggest such theories in the article. The Shere-Hite research being discussed is OLD research though -- from when most people, including scientists, and possibly most homosexuals felt that it was a choice and not biological.
I plan on going to look into more detail about the research shown here as I was not aware that it was based primarily on male homosexuals, but felt that the research applied to female homosexuals as well. I think it would be fair, for NPOV sakes, to put into the article that research focused on female homosexuals has been minimal. Trying to state that female homosexuality is primarily choiuce,m and not biology is probably not supportable by research though. Atom (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
When we are quoting APA sources (go read those), they are talking about homosexuality in general, not just male homosexuality. So your claims of WP:SYNTHESIS is nonsensical. Phoenix of9 00:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The APA sources, as cited here, do not discuss lesbianism, or female homosexuality. However, there are statements here that refer to gay male, bisexual and lesbian sexual orientation which draw on sources that solely deal with male homosexuality, or conjoin sources, one dealing with one aspect of male homosexuality and the other dealing with a different aspect of male and female sexuality, to make a statement about both. Do I need to start going through these one by one and start tagging them? Mish (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Where does it say here [2] that they are only talking about male gays? Phoenix of9 00:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, I had added parts about female sexual orientation [3]. They were all deleted by Destinero. [4]. Here's the deleted part, which I think should be restored:


Phoenix of9 00:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think this illustrates what I am getting at - thank you. Mish (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
as to your previous citation of the APA source - this ought to be cited within the article, and while the more general points that do not rely on papers do seem to reflect this, it appears that much of that is already drawn from this statement, and is either not sourced to it or whatever used to be linked is broken (in two places where a possible link occurs). This could be problematic - and I would advise you to check the relevant parts of the article against the source to ensure that what has been drawn from this is properly sourced, is not verbatim (unless clearly marked as such using quotes), and has not been substantially reproduced either. Otherwise, all that material risks being challenged on the grounds of plagiarism. If I get time, I will see if I can find more recent material that is specific to female homosexuality, along the lines of the material from the Hite report that was deleted. The Hite report was as important historically for women as Kinsey was for men - and at least as important (maybe moreso) as his research into female sexuality. Just because it does not conform the male understanding of homosexuality, I do not think that reports of how women experience their sexuality should be dismissed so readily - and I am not aware that how lesbians perceive their sexual orientation has altered substantially since that report was published. But, I am willing to stand corrected if there is evidence to the contrary. Although even if there was scientific evidence that showed women were wrong about their sexuality - I doubt that would be seen as particularly relevant to many lesbians. Which is the point - it is about what lesbians said about their experience and understanding, not about what other people said about it or what it ought to be. Mish (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
There must be hundreds of quotes in that book. Why did you add the ones you added here? Whats the criteria? Why are you not adding the conclusions of the scientists instead of randomly (and perhaps in a non-neutral way) picked quotes? Phoenix of9 20:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Balance. The APA acknowledges that there are different explanations why people are homosexual, such as biology and social environment, and recognises that some people construct their identities. That our sexual identities are socially constructed - both heterosexual and homosexual - has been recognised ever since Foucault wrote about this. However, a large part of the etiology section is concerned with biological explanations. These show that there is an equally valid alternative viewpoint - that some people are homosexual because they choose to be, and because they like women, and biological explanations do not feature in their understanding. A lot of the quotes would be irrelevant, because they are not about this type of sexual orientation, but about heterosexuality, and would be off-topic. You will be pleased to know that somebody has sent me a load of more up to date material on this. I would like you to leave this section alone, and give me time to work on this, so that I can improve upon what is there now. However, I have no wish to do that if you are simply going to delete anything that presents a balanced alternative to the biological determinism favoured by a small group of gay men and scientists. Mish (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

On whether article content is neutral when sources are not: Health scientists have a long history of claiming to study gender-neutrally but actually studying men, e.g., by testing medicines only on men, interviewing primarily men, testing physical responses to porn that was designed primarily for male consumers and finding men more responsive to it, or drawing conclusions based on weighting men's responses as more legitimate than women's. Reporting these results may be valid and facially neutral, especially when they're the best available at the time, but it is within neutrality to report on studies that single out females for testing or interviewing for consistency or balance. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Single-sex environments and homosexuality

There is no mention, as far as I can see, of homosexuality in the context of single-sex environments. This would be places like prisons, single-sex schools, merchant vessels (historically), etc., where homosexual acts and relationships are engaged in for a limited duration. These can be to do with experimentation, lack of any other sexual outlet, opportunism, or coercion (such as rape); or simply a dual sexual orientation (rather than bisexuality per se) where people engage in heterosexual relations in one context, and homosexual relations in another (in/out of prison, on-board or on-shore). Not only does this need to be described, but the reasons need to addressed - reasons which are not explained by the biological determinism of genetics or by social conditioning, but by choice, necessity or fear. Details of homosexual practice in prison can be found under Prison sexuality. Mish (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if this isn't covered by the expression "gay for the stay", i.e., I wonder if this isn't behavioral and not orientational, except for people for whom the change in their sexuality is fundamental, i.e., one they have internalized and accepted, and not merely situational because time has passed and they still have no opportunity for heterosexual contact they may desire till they die. If some distinction of the sort is kept, I'm fine with this extension. There are published personal statements about sexual experiences in custodial circumstances, but I'm not sure there are systematic studies that include interviews with sexual participants not adjudged as violators, since custodial cooperation is likely needed for such a study and the custodians would rather deny that there's any sex in their custody, since they could get sued for it.
I also wonder about claims of lack of sexual outlet and necessity. I suppose one could be in custody where, such as in a religious institution, autosexuality is worse than heterosexual rape or consensual homosexuality, so that reward/punishment leads to heterosexual necessity, so to speak. In one of the wars of the 1990s where rape was a major and frequent weapon with wide publicity, I recall a soldier saying he raped by order of his commander, and I think he said he could be punished (court-martialed? killed? sent to a battlefront?) for failure. Usually necessity is wildly exaggerated, but I guess these are exceptions.
Thanks for bringing it up.
Nick Levinson (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Depends on the source, the APA distinguishes behaviour from orientation, but the Amicus doesn't, it gives a range of things it can be (separated by 'or', rather than 'and') - I guess 'enduring disposition' is part of the definition. That would normally apply to people in prison for life. However, according to the prison article, some of those who participate in homosexual activity coercively come to identify as homosexual themselves, which suggests orientation. By necessity I did not mean coercion, but the need for an outlet for the libido. Mish (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

hormonal evidence against social determination of sexual orientation

A discussion with this title has just been opened on the sexual orientation article's talk page. Feel free to weigh in. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Splitting and revision of article

This article is greater than 105KB in size and had been marked for splitting. I also believe that this article has lost focus, and that clarity is no longer present.

I suggest that this article be limited to the scope of homosexuality as a phenomenon, that large sections have their own pages and that certain subsections be merged with their parent articles. This should benefit people wishing to learn about homosexuality (in being offered a clear, concise overview) and benefit special interests in offering the information within broader articles.

In order to avoid conflicts and to comply with peer review systems, I propose the formation of a workgroup for the revision of this article. Several major contributors to this article have been invited to this talk.

Pdorion (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been a week now, and I've gotten no feedback from the person who rolled-back my original modifications or the main contributors to this page. I am going forward with modifications.

Pdorion (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

What are you proposing? If you wish to make substantial changes, the best way to do this is to set up the revised page(s) in a sanbox, make the changes there, then invite people here to comment. I apologise for not responding to your invite more promptly, but I have been quite busy. There has been a working group for this article before, and it must have ran out of steam, but what you see is what remains after going through that process. Mish (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I see what you have done, it makes sense. Relevant material from History of sexuality needs to be integrated, and three summaries/intros of the article needs to be written - one for here, one for there, and one for the lead of the History of homosexuality article. It seems pointless to have large sections featuring some overlap between this and the other article: merging the information into a single article seems the best approach, as both articles are quite long anyway. Can you ensure this is done before undertaking any further revisions. Thanks. Mish (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of redundant information here and there on homosexuality. Right now my focus is on presenting a thorough summary of homosexuality, without digressing into details and properly redirecting people to in-depth articles.

I am not a historian, nor do I wish to dabble in the history of homosexuality. My primary concern is the proper education of people (the mass) through a simplified article, a summary of homosexuality if you will. There are several other, very detailed and very well-written articles which are available for external referencing. I feel that this course of action is more productive than presenting a very long, large and fastidious article which could only serve to discourage people.

I would be very happy to coordinate my efforts with you, or anyone else wishing to participate. I can be reached on the #homosexuality-revision channel on irc.freenode.net.

Pdorion (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that if the relocated text is not linked to properly, and summarised in the article it is is removed from, it will get lost to those who would wish to follow that up further. It is best to do this when the section is relocated, rather than leaving it hanging and hoping that somebody will get round to doing it one day.Mish (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Steps are being taken to ensure the proper cross-linking of articles. In addition to the split templates, I am keeping a log of my move operations. When I began I've also verified with administrators and it is possible for them to parse the encyclopedia and update links, with the help of the machine-friendly log it should be relatively easy to update the links. I also make major adjustments to the category and portal pages manually.

I disagree with your last split - Parenting is already an artcile, and this is simply undue for a summary in this article. I recommend that you replace parenting, mark it as undue, and rename the social page as legal alone. Mish (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Project Draft

As you've mentioned yourself, LGBT parenting, like many other topics surrounding homosexuality, has its own page. However I strongly feel that LGBT Parenting is a social matter, since no single person can successfully raise a child into society; everyone, teachers, sports coaches, extended family and friends often play a role in a child's development and I believe an overview of LGBT parenting belongs in Homosexuality in society.

I am also planning and hoping that the Homosexuality in society page will expand with time and as other articles are merged into it, however discussion of the Homosexuality in society page belongs on that page and not here.

You must also understand that this is a lengthy task and it is not possible for me to polish every corner in one single pass. I suggest the following work methodology:

  • Creation of new subtopic pages;
  • Merging of information into existing pages;
  • Formatting and summarizing modified pages to make them more user-presentable;
  • Addition of summaries and links in related articles;
  • Revision of content for Homosexuality, and created pages.

Currently the task at hand is creating a clean outline for the homosexuality page, in removing some strenuous information. I recommend keeping it very clean and encyclopedic, with a strong focus on offering summarized information on the following points:

  • The definition, without interpretation, of homosexuality (the word);
  • An overview of the physiological aspects of homosexuality (the biology);
  • An overview of the psychology of homosexuality (possible psychological causes);
  • An overview of homosexual behavior in animals.

This simple page should present a very clear and concise introduction to homosexuality. With the addition of one or two other subsections it would be possible to maintain clarity while offering complete information to readers wishing to acquire in-depth knowledge of homosexuality on a variety of facets: medical, social, societal, historical.

I think that somewhere along the way, the current page on Homosexuality lost focus and became a soapbox rather than an encyclopedic resource. In my opinion, the goal of an encyclopedic article is not to shape people's opinions but rather to allow them to make their own.

My next course of action will be to take relevant subsections of Sexuality and gender identity and Etiology to integrate them into other pages. As I've previously done, templates will be used to note moved sections during the edition process.

I noticed you've added a summary to "history", however I don't believe the time is right to make additions or edit the content. Firstly we must build a proper layout for the information this article will contain and separate the information to the right child articles. Much like laying bricks, we first need a strong foundation for this article and much like a bonsai tree, this article will be pruned but it will grow again and so will the pages that spawned from it.

I would also like to group subsections used for cross-linkage under one (perhaps two) sections, perhaps to be titled "Perspectives on Homosexuality", this section should offer views from many different scholarly standpoints: medical, historical, psychological, social, sociological, etc. which all already have very detailed articles.

Pdorion (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Motivation

I disagree with having an article called Homosexuality in society. All human behaviour exists in society -- the title is meaningless. It doesn't seem like a useful way to organize content. We already have Societal attitudes towards homosexuality to hold the vast majority of this content. --Alynna (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, seemed odd to me - I agree that they should be merged into a new article: I liked your original idea along the lines of Social and legal status of LGBT people. Mish (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The title is meaningful, however the article is incomplete and disorganized. Societal attitudes towards homosexuality deals with social attitudes and is very political and theological. While the article also deals with human factors, its scope does not encompass the object of Homosexuality in society.

Science aims to create a universal theory of everything, however is it not possible to efficiently have a single article that encompasses all aspects of homosexuality. The article I am creating right now aims to be legible by the masses while offering facts about homosexuality as a phenomenon. Demographics, history, legal status, primers on parenting, primers on relationships, homosexuality in the military, etc. belong somewhere else. Homosexuality in society is a functional placeholder during the edition process and should gain focus in the near future.

While science aims to create a "unified theory of everything", it's not efficient to have a "unified article of everything". Homosexuality aims to be a primer on the phenomenon, Homosexuality in society aims to be a primer on the sociological and human aspects of homosexuality, and Societal attitudes towards society offers political and theological perspectives on homosexuality. All three articles appeal to different crowds at different stages.

Since I am from a scientific background, I would greatly appreciate live support and expertise in dealing with humanities. I am also sorry for the delays, as I have to work alone this project entails much research and planning and my personal situation is precarious at the moment and does not always grant me sufficient peace of mind so that I may work on this project.

This is not an easy task and I understand that you may wish to know more about my motives. I am a scientist (I study medicine) and I am editing this article in the general intention of properly informing people regarding homosexuality. I am not here to profess my medical opinion on homosexual acts or my medical opinion on homosexuality itself, its causes or origins. From my perspective three large categories of people could visit this page: Heterosexual people wishing to know more about homosexuality, homosexual people wishing to understand themselves and people with a scholarly objective looking for in-depth information regarding homosexuality.

The previous article was highly confusing, even for me; however other in-depth articles are very well written, laid-out and detailed. I simply wish to offer a more comprehensive summary-portal to those other pages, while offering unbiased general information regarding homosexuality. This is proving to be a more difficult task than I anticipated, both because of lack of assistance from someone with a background in humanities and because the information is so disparate that it is hard to piece it all together.

My personal motivation is simply progress in communication. As a highly scientific individual, I sometimes disregard human factors which might be important to some. While leaving the expert work to experts, this project is allowing me insight into many ... realms of human perspective. I believe the abilities I gain in participating in this project will better me as a person and help me in my future medical practice.

My opinion on homosexuality is rather simple. I think that everyone is entitled to love and to be loved. Life and especially relationships should not be a task. During my clerkship and during the course of my practice I don't want to be treating acts of violence, terrorism, or discrimination. I believe that acceptance originates from understanding and there lies my primary objective.

I am making major editions to the article and I do believe you have the right to know who is making these changes. I will try to make a personal page tonight.

Pdorion (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you need to be careful not to slant this article in a way that it over-emphasises the scientific debates about homosexuality, as that would undermine WP:NPOV. There is active debate about whether homosexuality is a neuro-biological or social phenomenon, and if it becomes overly slanted towards science it will become tagged for POV. Homosexuality is a social phenomenon, and is not a medical issue (and has not been so for 40 years), so any coverage of medical issues has to be limited to health issues affecting people who are homosexual, not homosexuality itself; if you look at one area of health, such as efforts to change sexual orientation, or homosexuality and HIV, there are sub-articles that deal with these matters in depth, so these should also be reduced here if possible. There are sub-articles about the biology of sexual orientation already, so if you are to do what you have done with social and historic aspects in an unbiased way, you will also need to do the same with biological as well as medical matters. If this doesn't happen within a reasonable time, then the material you have may have to be restored to ensure the article doesn't appear overly weighted away from the social/historical. Thanks. Mish (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
IMHO homosexuality is both, genetic and social depending on the individual. One aspect is relevant to biology, the other aspect is relevant to psychology. It has never been my opinion that homosexuality was a medical issue, you must understand that medicine encompasses several fields of science (anatomy, organic chemistry, cell biology, ...) and I see homosexuality as a fact rather than as a "condition".
I am going forward in creating a "Perspectives on homosexuality" section and a "Sexual orientation" section, changes should be made momentarily. Pdorion (talk)
"There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation." http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;113/6/1827
"Sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000262525&typ=pdf
"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment." http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf
"Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice." http://healthyminds.org/More-Info-For/GayLesbianBisexuals.aspx
-> There may be debates or IMHOs over social factors contributing to homosexual orientation, but the reality is that there is no evidence to these assertions and all the evidence goes for biology. Wikipedia should surely reflect up to date reliable sources on these matters. --Destinero (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It should reflect the scientific sources, but not to the exclusion of other perspectives. Social constructionists, queer theorists, lesbian feminists reject this, often arguing that science is irrelevant. Why we are queer is less important than that we are queer. That is all in reliable sources, and one discipline does not override any other. So, some do argue this in terms of freedom and choice, rather than psycho-social or biological determinism. Presenting perspectives from reliable sources does not mean license to exclude information from other reliable sources in a debate that has gone on for over a century - that would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to one set of sources, based on the POV that one happens to agree with those sources. Mish (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There are various types of homosexuality. You have your born and raised homosexuals, you have your born and deviated homosexuals, there are sexual abuse victims who turn to homosexuality, there people who become homosexual after a trauma, ... Some people are homosexual by nature, others were forced into this type of behavior and there are even others who are forced out of homosexuality. Certain are homosexual by choice, others by lack of choice. These are observable facts. My goal is not to point out the root cause of homosexuality, simply to present a clean, thorough brief on the phenomenon. Pdorion (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If you state this you should be able to show evidence for it. But your assertions are nothing than you original research. You simply can not just come here and repudiate all conclusive findings of reliable sources all of which very strictly state that sexual orientation is not choice and no evidence exist to support your suggestion about trauma/sexual abuses etc. You mabye only want to play like a scientist who follow the topic but the reality seems just the opposite because of your deficient knowledge. --Destinero (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Some people choose their sexual orientation. Other people are driven towards a certain behavior due to their biology. Are you trying to make me believe that out of all the people on the planet, none have chosen homosexuality?

Pdorion (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

While there are many different lived experiences, there are not "various types of homosexuality." I have no idea what a "born and raised homosexual" is: many, perhaps most gay people believe they were born gay, but nobody "raises" their child to be gay, and there's no way to do that anyway. "Born and deviated homosexuals" means nothing. The idea that people turn gay because of sexual abuse or trauma or force is only supported by anti-gay organizations and Ted Haggard, but not by mainstream science, and the same goes for being "forced out of homosexuality," by which I can only assume you must be referring to "ex-gays," since forcing a person not to engage in certain behaviours doesn't make them any less gay. Similarly, nobody becomes homosexual due to a lack of opposite sex partners. Situational homosexuality only refers to behaviour, not to orientation. So, rather than "observable facts," what you've presented here is a bunch of unscientific, unsupportable, and utterly false claims that have nothing whatsoever to do with current understandings of homosexuality by respectable mainstream science. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That is my opinion and I'm not here to debate my opinion. These are facts that I was able to observe, though I'm not interested in writing a dissertation about it. Like I said, I'm just revising the article. I'm not adding or subtracting information, simply re-organizing it and presenting it in a different way.

On a different note this talk is rapidly degenerating into a debate about homosexuality. I have to remind everyone that this is not a forum and that the current task is the revision of the Homosexuality article. I have yet to see any substantial recommendation, constructive criticism or contribution to this effort.

I do not believe that Wikipedia was ever meant to become a tool for political, religious or even scientific debate no more than it was designed to convey LGBT propaganda, or anti-gay activism. Unless you are in disagreement with the information presented in the article please refrain from debating on the Talk page. Thank you.

Also the time I have to spend writing on the Talk page takes away from the time I can spend on the article. This is rapidly beginning to look like trolling.

It is in the general public health interest that this article becomes clear and concise. It must benefit the target audiences as specified in the project draft, to which you may refer at your convenience.

Pdorion (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If those are simply your opinions, then they don't belong here either, and your bringing them up and then chastising others when they respond isn't very helpful. You would have saved everyone a lot of time by keeping your opinions to yourself and sticking to discussion of the article content. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
@Pdorion. Your active experience of editing seems pretty recent, and focused on this article; it might be wise if you were to gain more experience in editing on articles less prone to controversy. You need to be careful using words like 'troll' about other editors who have been involved in editing this and other articles for some time, as that could be construed as unWP:CIVIL. The problem here is that you seem intent to force through some radical changes to this article without proper discussion, and based simply on your opinion about how the article ought to be. This is a finely balanced article that has developed over a number of years, and by chopping things out 'willy-nilly' simply because you think it would be a good idea is going to cause concern. I agree that something needs to be done - but not in the 'slash-and-burn' manner you seem to be approaching this with. No changes have to be accepted without consensus, as long as they do not actually violate policies, and reading what you have just written I am of a mind to revert everything back to a point before you began hacking at this article. Then you will need to discuss these changes before they are implemented, and modify them in a way that is governed by consensus. Mish (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

With who? You? The changes to be brought were discussed in the project draft. Besides you who seems to look over my shoulder I am not seeing many people with whom to achieve consensus.

Pdorion (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Update to lead text

In the mean time I would also appreciate help in rewriting the lead text. I have drafted this Saturday night and I would appreciate input.


The current lead text would make a great introduction to the Sexual Orientation section and the last paragraph could be used in the introduction for Homosexuality in society.

Pdorion (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is always defined in relational terms and necessarily involves relationships with other individuals. Sexual acts and romantic attractions are categorized as homosexual or heterosexual according to the biological sex of the individuals involved in them, relative to each other. Indeed, it is by acting -- or desiring to act -- with another person that individuals express their heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. This includes actions as simple as holding hands with or kissing another person. Thus, sexual orientation is integrally linked to the intimate personal relationships that human beings form with others to meet their deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behavior, these bonds encompass nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Consequently, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic that can be defined in isolation. Rather, one’s sexual orientation defines the universe of persons with whom one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling relationships that, for many individuals, comprise an essential component of personal identity." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
Thus, the last sentence in the suggested lead must be rewritten to reflect above mentioned facts correctly. --Destinero (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A legal ruling is hardly fact. A lot of people engage in homosexual acts without there being an expressed relationship, intimacy or romance and not everyone who engages in homosexual activities is looking for a homosexual relationship. If you feel my last sentence is "politically incorrect", please feel free to suggest an alternate script; political correctness has never been my forte.

While the citation is relevant to established homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage, I don't think it is relevant to "homosexuality as a phenomenon". Perhaps this information would be best used in the Relationships subsection of Sexual orientation and in Homosexuality in society.

Pdorion (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My main issue with the lead text is that it is redundant to the article. It's presented as a brief rather than as an introduction and quite frankly it's not very welcoming. My text, while basic and not very encyclopedia-sounding, implies nothing, it's very neutral and IMO incites the reader to continue into the article. It could, however, probably use another paragraph. I'll see what I can do to expand it.

Pdorion (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you are not smart enought to see that this is not legal ruling but amici, the "nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists presented the brief to provide the Court with a comprehensive and balanced review of the scientific and professional literature pertinent to the issues before the Court." I actually don't know why you want to make so drastic changes in article if you don't underestands basics facts and sources. --Destinero (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, this information is relevant to sexual orientation and homosexuality in society. Perhaps you would be able to write paragraphs for the Sexual orientation/Relationships section of Homosexuality, or present this information in the Homosexuality in society page?

I honestly feel this document is not relevant to the lead text of the article as it presents homosexuality as a phenomenon occurring in humans and animals. It is clearly stated in the last sentence that homosexuality may or may not include relationships and/or intimacy.

Pdorion (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the legal brief's role in this and similar articles: The brief (with the accompanying application in the same PDF) is not a court ruling but is a submission to a court by amici curiae, or 'friends of the court', generally organizations who are not parties to the case in which submitted but who were given consent to submit by one party, who likely believed it useful to their side of the case, and, depending on the court, by both leading parties (often one will give consent as a courtesy to the opposing party, who will reciprocate for opposing amici).
The importance of the brief to the scientific article is not that the brief is in the court's hands or is quoted (if it is quoted) by the court in a favorable ruling (if the ruling is favorable) but that the signatories of the brief certify their scientific statement as of a given date. An amicus or amici brief is written with far more flexibility than occurs in testimony that is more closely guided by opposing attorneys and the judge in real time, so that the authors can more thoughtfully and more readily state information and views more precisely and qualify them as necessary; it is not necessary to limit oneself to answering narrow questions, as witnesses may be required to do.
It is possible for other scientists or scholars to submit an amici brief that contradicts the first one, but looking at who signed the two briefs or comparing statements for differences will often lead to resolving apparent conflicts. If the brief had been signed by John's Pizzeria, we'd probably ignore it. Juries are not usually allowed to do research to validate or invalidate testimony or a brief, but most of us are not on juries, so we can investigate the brief as we can many other publications. These briefs are usually written for judges, not juries.
That, roughly, is why I found the California marriage amici brief useful for some Wikipedia articles. When it comes to psychology, it authoritatively states scientific positions of the leading U.S. psy organizations who signed it. Other information is also available, but this brief provides a lot of utility and weight as a source. Choose what you consider best, and if you come up with something more authoritative, that's great, but where this fits and adds to the article you might find it useful.
Thanks for your work.
Nick Levinson (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Invitation

I invite everyone to participate in a live chat session for the revision of this article on #homosexuality-revision on irc.freenode.net at any time.

I also suggest a meeting date and time for serious discussion of this revision, Friday, June 25th at 7PM Eastern time.

This is so that we may all gather, discuss, and coordinate our efforts. Chat logs will be kept and be made available to Wikipedia users.

Pdorion (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an international encyclopedia, and so not all editors will be able to meet on IRC in USA time (myself being one) - furthermore, such discussion needs to take place here, not outside the encyclopedia, as that could be construed as canvassing. Here any discussion leading to consensus is documented and self contained - the process outside these pages cannot be monitored nor can it be referred back to at a later date by editors who were present, nor for future reference by editors who were not. Mish (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This mode of communication is time-consuming and not very effective. Im simply trying to find a more efficient way.

Pdorion (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Editorial Notes

I've made some modifications to the layout, the design should be clearer now. Visually the TOC is much more structured and some redundancy has been eliminated. Next I will be getting into the Sexual orientation section and try to bring clarity to it.

Pdorion (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted this, as it appears much of the health information has gone, and what is left is a section dealing with psych views under medical perspectives. You need to start discussing changes before you make them, lay out your reasons first, and if making major changes, then you would be better doing this in a sandbox, so people can discuss the changes before they are implemented in the main article. Thanks. Mish (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should compare versions before making undos. The information is still there, however contained in their respective sections. As you've previously stated yourself, I believe, homosexuality is not a medical issue. Furthermore several other minute changes were made along with the layout modifications, I am restoring the edited version. I suggest you compare the two versions before undoing the change and discuss the reasons why you believe the edit should be reverted before doing so.

My contributing presence on Wikipedia may be recent, however I have several years of experience in text edition. You may feel free to read through the project draft and offer commentary if you please.

Pdorion (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pdorion: several comments regarding your most recent posts to various parts of this page. First, you should indeed discuss and seek consensus before making large changes to articles prone to controversy, with Mish and any other user who cares to discuss them. That's just how things work here. Second, I see several references to "the project draft," but I see no link to it anywhere.
Finally, the best way to make changes to long articles is bit by bit. The talk page is filled with commentary and the changes you wish to make involve a lot of text; it's difficult and time-consuming to do that much reading, especially when changes are fast and we're not all online at the same time. To be honest, looking at some of your comments here I assumed you were a homophobic vandal until I read your user page. If you want to move forward, I suggest starting with a short new section regarding the first change(s) you're proposing, because have no idea what you're trying to do with this article, and I suspect I'm not the only one. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Modified layout of Sexual orientation.

Comparison of the TOC for the article
Before and after.

@Exploding Boy: The changes to be brought were first described in the project draft. Child pages were created (History of Homosexuality, Homosexuality in society), right now changes are being made to the layout of Homosexuality to make it more comprehensible. Originally, printed, this article was 28 pages long had had no heads or tails. The picture is a scan of the TOC before edition and a screen capture of the new TOC.

To do this efficiently first the foundation must be prepared. The layout is now much cleaner and much easier to work with. To date, no information was added or subtracted from the article, only moved around. The project will continue along the guidelines established in the project draft, major changes will be discussed.

Pdorion (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are intent in ignoring appeals to discuss these changes BEFORE you implement them, so I am reverting right back to the version before you began making such sweeping changes. Your dismissal of the views of other editors is contemptuous. You need to discuss this, and (as I said before) work on this in draft form in a sandbox, giving other editors an opportunity to review and contribute FIRST - not steam ahead and disrupt the live article this way, ignoring everybody else. Please do not edit war. That is not a productive approach - you need to bring others on board, not dictate. Mish (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I strongly support this revert. Too many changes, in too short a time. Don't rush. Wikipedia will be around for a while yet. So will this article. Seek consensus over many days. We can't all post within hours. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I will not discuss this in a committee while people associate me with this rag you call an article. History is written by the victor and I will not sit back and relax while you discriminate by preventing people from getting clear and concise information.

Pdorion (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If you continue destroying article developed by broad editorial consensus over many years in quick manner, you options to continue that will be quickly eliminated under Wikipedia policies. I am from Czech republic (Central Europe) and I don't have time to sit on IRC when you want to discuss these things. I can not imagine a signle reason why such dramatic changes cannot wait and bake over next few weeks/months on your sandbox acoompanied with discussion with other editors and why you want to do that over few dozen hours only. I believe editors are willing to listen your ideas and consider them seriously, just give them time and opportunity to do that. And remember, with little time provided, chances are that editorial consensus and acceptance of your suggestions still haven't developed. --Destinero (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite your efforts to make me rage and your efforts to prevent people from getting the clear picture, I have moved my most recent edition to Talk:Homosexuality/Sandbox. Pdorion (talk)

"I will not discuss this in a committee while people associate me with this rag you call an article." Bluntly put, this is the type of thing that will win you no support, and may get you blocked. And it's precisely what you will do if you want to avoid either of those scenarios. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Pdorion -
Please calm down and listen to the criticism. I don't know whether they're right or you are, on the content changes. But - and this is very important - Wikipedia isn't just the encyclopedia that everyone can edit. It's also the encyclopedia that everyone edits together.
What other members of the community who are editing think about articles are as important as what you think. Everyone has to cooperate and find a constructive consensus. That doesn't mean agreeing with everything that others think. But it does mean working with them and listening to them.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If only they provided constructive criticism. All I read is orders and people watching over my shoulder while I do all the work. If they don't want to involve themselves it's fine, however they should let me do my part. I came here trying to edit an article in dire need and was repelled on countless occasions by all kinds of figures and now I'm faced with with a not very helpful opposition force.
I am going forward with this project in the sandbox, the project draft will be copied in the sandbox's talk page and the project documentation will be presented there. A lot of time and effort went into this already and a lot of time and effort was put towards not erasing what other people contributed.
On the bright side, this has gathered substantial attention which might allow substantial involvement. Meet you in the sandbox. Pdorion (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Pdorion, can you please use the correct talk page format and indent your replies. Outdent should only be used in long strings where the conversation is becoming too reduced. Also, please do not leave an extra line before your signature.
With regard to your remarks, the simple fact is this: if you don't like thankless work and a lot of discussion, then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. That your efforts have been "repelled by countless figures" should tell you something about the need for discussion. Also, as I mentioned before, it is far easier for people to digest small changes rather than wholesale ones. Remember: you're asking people to do a lot of reading quickly, which isn't always possible, particularly when we aren't all online at the same time. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Offline Edition

Without further ado, I introduce a revised layout for the Homosexuality page, which can be found here and the project documentation can be found here.

Discuss.

Pdorion (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. You do need to look at your rhetoric, the way you describe existing editors and their work is quite dismissive. It is oppositional because it is a topic that draws extreme views, and has had to present different 'sides' to maintain balance. This is where Wikipedia can be more reflective of debates in the real world. You need to go through the history, and no matter how well this article written, long after you have moved on, it will still draw people who believe it is a sin or moral weakness, which can be cured, and who will try to work their POV into the article, and there will be people who don't who will resist these insertions, and this will develop, and people will pass by as they read and throw in their two-pennies worth. That is because this is a community encyclopedia, it grows out of the community of people who read and edit it, it is not like a printed encyclopedia with deadlines and editorial boards. As ExplodingBoy said above, if you find that hard to work with, then you need to think about what you are doing - because the rhetoric directed against editors here is effectively directed against the whole project.
In your description, you talk a lot about your 'opinion'. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't really care about that, it has very clear policies and guidelines, and these are what count. Anything you do needs to be within the logic of that framework, I suggest you take time reading up on these and seeing how you can apply them in this article. It is also important to assume good faith, rather than be-litting other editors. Thanks for all your effort, but believe me, I have put hundreds of hours of editing into this place, and I think if I'm lucky about 1% will survive as readable text. It is not as easy as re-writing something and forcing it through. We do not work that way, and if you do this and people do not accept what you want in the way you want it, you need to be able to listen and accept that. Mish (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You make no sense. All you seem intent on doing is protecting your "hundreds of hours of edition" and your status as a "wikipedia editor". At this point I don't think you believe in presenting a decent article anymore.

I do not see Wikipedia as a community, rather as a collaborative effort. I'm not going to adopt a "guard dog" attitude towards an article. Right now my objectives are very well detailed in the Sandbox's talk page, you are welcome to the revision of the article. It will however require an attitude change on your part.

Sure you can watch an article and undo changes as you see fit, however that's only sign that the article is not to everyone's liking. This means that the article is not complete. It is my belief that a well-written article would fix this as well.

While Wikipedia is not a printed article with deadlines and structure, it lacks this. I am willing to offer structure in a collaborative effort and do most of the editorial work, however you must be willing to work with me on this. There is no "deadline" to the publication of the article, though as you've stated this encyclopedia reaches everywhere in the world. In the world, I have other things to do than spend my time watching an article and editing it, thus it does have a deadline. I am not going to spend years on this while you bitch and moan, hiding behind your "community" only to preserve "your work".

I also do not believe Wikipedia has elected you as a representative to speak for everyone.

Pdorion (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it hasn't - and it hasn't elected you to come here and start throwing your weight about either. I am simply reminding/informing you that there are certain policies and guidelines that you would be advised to follow. One of those is that you need to assume good faith WP:AGF, and be civil to other editors WP:CIVIL, and edit co-operatively.
  • 'You make no sense. All you seem intent on doing is protecting your "hundreds of hours of edition" and your status as a "wikipedia editor". At this point I don't think you believe in presenting a decent article anymore.'
This is uncivil. As soon as you were told that this is not the way to proceed, you started acting like a bully, and showed a reluctance to go along with the policy/guidelines on this matter, and persisted in your contempt for existing editors. It does not make me, for one, have much inclination to work with you - especially as I am one of (if not the) only person who has so far actively attempted to work with you on this. I too am very busy with other things. When you want comments on your revised draft, let me know and I will have a look. I have already given my affirmation that this article would be better as series of short sections introducing different aspects/perspectives on the issue, and linking to other articles. Just as you decided to whittle away most of the social aspects to another article, and given there are already extensive articles on health, biology, psychology, religion, etc., I would expect you be just as ruthless with those sections, and ensure that it is clearly linked to those articles within the appropriate sections. There is no reason why any specific (relevant) disciplinary perspective should be more heavily weighted than any other. Mish (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a 28 (twenty eight) page article. I cannot change it in a single blow. There are a lot of things to change and a lot of things to prepare. As the largest chunks of the marble fall it's easier to get a clearer picture of what there is to do.

Yes you are the only other person who's involving themselves in this and our main issue seems to be interpersonal rather than professional. Which is why I invited people to chat. It is currently Friday, 7PM eastern time. You are welcome to chat with me so that we may resolve our personal differences and "bond", if you want. This will allow us to work together more effectively. In our case trust may have to be earned from each other and live conversation is the best way to go at it.

Pdorion (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I too care a lot about this article. I cannot spend time on it now. If you make massive rapid changes now that I find later are not appropriate, i will simply revert them then. Demanding that others instantly follow your bidding doesn't work on Wikipedia. I will be watching, but not right now. (And it wasn't "7PM eastern time" where I live when you wrote that! Your ego and self centredness are showing signs of running dangerously out of control.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
That was about midnight here, by the look of it. My feeling, following the exchange with Moni on the sandbox talk page, is that it needs to be hacked right back to the bone, with sections serving as links to main articles on each sub-topic. A lot of those are better, and then anybody who wants to start POV-pushing here will have a hard time doing so here, they will have to find somewhere else to do it. But it needs to be done across the board, not just 'social issues' & history - medicine, health, psychology, etc., like biology, all need to be reduced to a paragraph or two each, as they all have their own articles. Mish (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I just checked, XPS prints out the text without all the wikipedia bits, and it runs to 36 pages - of which 20 pages is of actual text. The rest (16 pages) is introduction, TOC, and references/links: I am not sure there is any value in having single references that take up a whole column of A4. We could lose some space by culling the text from the references. Yeah, see, even with the cull, it is still 22 pages long, of which just over half is text (12 pages to be precise). Mish (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


Pdorion, I'm asking you yet again to please use the correct talk page format and thread your replies.
I agree with Mish and the other editors who have repeatedly asked you to slow down and be civil. It is beginning to appear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Dozens, perhaps hundreds of people have contributed to this article, watch it, and care about it, but not all of them are available at any given time. Like you, everyone has other things to do. Wikipedia is not for everybody: things tend to move very slowly. Your job here is not to "offer structure" or to "do most of the editorial work," it is to edit collaboratively. That means a lot of discussion, and it means accepting sometimes that what you feel very strongly about will not come to pass. While you've certainly managed to generate a lot of talk page discussion, unfortunately next to none of it has been about improvements to the article itself. When are you going to start listening to the more experienced editors who are asking you to slow down, take things bit by bit, discuss your proposed changes, and edit by consensus? Exploding Boy (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Laumann, Edward O. (1994). The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press. p. 299.
  2. ^ Baileya, Nathan W.; Zuka, Marlene (August 2009), "Same-sex sexual behavior and evolution", Trends in Ecology & Evolution, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 439–446, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.014
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexuality/Archive_20&oldid=1092027424"