Talk:Societal attitudes toward homosexuality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Homosexuality celebrated in European Christianity?

". . . during several periods in European Christian history homosexuality was not repressed and was even celebrated, as with heterosexuality."

This appears to state that heterosexuality was celebrated in European Christianity. Is this true? I was under the impression that open human sexuality was and is a closed topic and not subject to celebration. At the very least, I think author should provide examples of these periods. Escheffel 15:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Men more likely to be anti-gay?

Presently in Western countries pre-pubescent males and older men are more likely to manifest anti-LGBT attitues.

OK, I know there are much more detailed statistics than that on all sorts of demographic axes, including relious affiliation and participation, ethnicity, age, etc. Consider this a request to expand the article in this direction. -- Beland 23:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Needs expansion, or merging?

After reorganizing the article, I see that it is really need of general expansion, except perhaps for those sections which have external articles, which probably just need to be synced up. -- Beland 00:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot of overlap here with homosexuality and morality (which is by far the better piece), perhaps the two should be merged?--Eloquence* 02:02, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

They could at least use cross-pollination. Given the diversity of section headers here, each of which represents its own topic, I wonder whether they should be merged and then re-split along different axes. Both of them need attention, though you are right that this one needs more. -- Beland 16:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Remove Fred Phelps references?

Since no one really takes Fred Phelp's seriously, putting in stuff about Fred Phelp's makes this article really biased (as in, making gay bashers look really stupid). --Secretwanderer 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

needs references

"All mainstream Western health and mental health professional organizations have concluded this therapy is ineffective, unnecessary, and potentially harmful." This, right here, is a very compelling bit of trivia, especially with the word "all." Some kind of reference would be nice for the sake of verification, because as it stands I have to admit it's kind of hard to believe. Archaist 18:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that the 'all' needs to be taken along with the 'mainstream'. It would not be surprising that all mainstream Western health and mental health professional organizations have concluded that "reparative" therapy is ineffective, etc., when one considers that being a mainstream mental health organization pretty much means being in line with the APA. -Seth Mahoney 00:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Only 38% of the general public think that "homosexual behavior" is wrong."

I'm confused as to why the word "only" is in that sentence. Peoplesunionpro 19:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"In some cultures, such as Ancient Greece and pre-modern Japan, homosexual practices were the foundation of religion, education, philosophy and military culture. The Bedamini people of New Guinea believe that homosexual activities promote growth throughout nature, while excessive heterosexual activities lead to decay in nature."

First off, the declaration that "homosexual practices were the foundation of religion..." is extremely general. The examples given do not mention Ancient Greece or Japan. Furthermore, the Ancient Greek culture, continued to emphasize the primacy of marriage, if for no other reason, than the necessity for procreation and child-rearing. This may be different than the pederasty endorsed in refined Athenian circles, but is hardly "the foundation" of the society and culture.

Leonwatch

"In other cultures, specifically those dominated by Christian or Muslim dogma, they were repressed by means of torture and death."

This(contention)could use much more supporting sentences.

Leonwatch

Multiple Anonymous Reverts

How do we end the revert war with the anonymous user who keeps reverting the Pedophilia section? Any ideas? --Chesaguy 03:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The best way is to remove the article. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are supposed to contain facts, not editorials.

Does this statement belong in an Encyclopedia: "In most developed countries, same-sex relationships are accepted"? Is that a fact?

How about this statement: "In some cultures influenced by anti-gay religious dogma, homosexuality is still considered unnatural". Is the reason that some cultures consider homosexuality unnatural really because they are "influenced by anti-gay religious dogma"? How do we know that? Is that fact or opinion?

How about this "fact": "Violence against homosexuals remains common". How are we defining "common"? Is that fact or spin?

The "article" references the "LGBT civil rights movement". But "civil rights" are personal rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, ie, freedom of speech, press, etc. Are homosexual rights spelled out in the Constitution? Then can there really be a "LGBT civil rights movement"? Or was that term crafted to associate gay rights with the rights of racial minorities?

"Some religious movements and other advocates believe that they can heal or cure homosexuality through 'reparative therapy.' However, all mainstream Western health and mental health professional organizations have concluded this therapy is ineffective, unnecessary, and potentially harmful." Really? ALL mainstream Western health and mental health professional organizations? Every single one? Or did the author determine who is "mainstream" based on whether the groups agree with him?

"Statistically, damage from natural disasters in the modern United States is not correlated well with homosexual population, but it does correlate with Protestantism. Of course there is no consensus over whether this fact is of any significance"

Then why mention it? What does it mean to say that "damage from natural disasters does correlate with Protestantism"? How can something correlate with a religion? And what has that to do with the topic?

The entire article should be removed. It is spin from beginning to end.

It is incorrect to say "homosexuals" are "those attracted to same-sex adults". That is NOT the definition of homosexual. See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homosexual . People who have sex with members of the same gender (adult or minor) are by very definition homosexual. To redefine "homosexual" in an attempt to skew the molestation statistics is disingenuous. This is not a factual article. It should be removed. Lou franklin 03:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Lou, I think the point is that it is even more disingenuous to suggest that adults who are attracted to other adults of the same sex are more apt to molest children or, conversely that adults who molest children of their own gender are more likely to be attracted to adults of their own gender. To obscure the difference between child molestation and sexual expression between adults in order to demonize adult (non-child-molesting) homosexual people is less honest than the semantic games you are trying to propigate. -User:Chesaguy

If what you really want is to have this article removed, nominate it for deletion here: WP:AFD instead of wasting either the space here, or our time reverting your POV and pointedly biased edits. -Seth Mahoney 03:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

AFD debate

Angr/talk 10:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Repression of Those Perceived to be Homophobic

This section could use some sources and rephrasing to make it sound less POV. --Chesaguy 04:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No doubt, which is why I'm moving the whole thing here until it is fixed:

In certain countries and regions which have accepted homosexuality, speech codes have been enacted which preclude the open criticism of homosexuals or homosexual behavior. Under the guise of anti-hate crimes legislation which is supposed to protect vulnerable minority groups, such laws have led to the arrest of individuals who were perceived to have violated them. Notable cases include Pastor Ake Green of Sweden who was sentenced to a month in prison for condemning homosexual behavior in a sermon. His conviction was later overturned, but not before reaching the Swedish Supreme Court. Another case involved Michael Marcavage and his evangelical Christian group, Repent America, members of which were arrested while protesting a gay pride event in Philadelphia in October of 2004. Charged with eight crimes, including three felonies under hate-crimes statutes, the group faced 47 years in jail and $90,000 in fines before the charges were summarily dismissed by a Philadelphia judge.

My complaint is this: it is POV to say that this is repressive force. I agree, actually, that it is sometimes, but it is sufficient to say that there is legislation in place which is intended to protect gay men and lesbians, and that these groups have been affected by the laws. Anything more is editorializing.

-Seth Mahoney 05:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate sources

Okay, here's the deal: The Family Research Institute, NARTH, etc. are not appropriate sources. They are known to have used research they knew (in fact they're still quoting the same research) to be flawed. See Paul Cameron and 1983 ISIS Survey for more information. Actually, I'm surprised there's no established Wikipedia policy on this.

That isn't to say they can't be used for anything. It was pointed out, for example, that this article uses www.godhatesamerica.com as a source. That's true, but it uses the site as a source for a quote from that site. We would be remiss if we said, "Fred Phelps says that 9/11 was caused by homosexuals" but failed to show where he said that. There is a difference, however, between saying "so-and-so said such-and-such here" and saying "such-and-such is true (see so-and-so)".

Not just anything counts as a source for truth claims. Academic sources are generally fine. Medical journals are generally fine. Scientific studies are generally fine (though it is preferred that you quote the study itself, not someone's interpretation of it). -Seth Mahoney 04:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is to say what "appropriate sources" are? If "there's no established Wikipedia policy on this" then the links should be retained. USA Today isn't exactly a medical journal either.

The article is biased and should have been removed. I was told that "trying to delete this article is not going to work. Instead, try editing the article yourself". That's what I did. Are saying that the article can't be deleted and can't be edited either? Lou franklin 04:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Lou, it doesn't matter how many conservative christian links you dig up to support your belief - they are still biased sources, and you are still trying to get your opinion added to this article. Groups like AFA and NARTH are biased and they are not suitable references for a sentence which claims to describe the results of scientific studies. The Godhatesamerica link is obviously there only as an example of the Westboro Baptist Church's beliefs, it doesn't purport to be a scientific study. Rhobite 05:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you really so much of a relativist, Lou, that you can't see that not just any source works to validate truth claims? Can you really not tell the difference between using USA Today as a source and using the AFA? Can you really not tell the difference in the way the godhatesamerica.com source is used and the way you are trying to use these sources? -Seth Mahoney 05:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article has a link to http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/ . That site has a picture of a guy on his couch in a tee shirt (ostensibly "Glen"). It says "Welcome to my site" and purports to be "the one web page that has everything! Including me!" The site was "last updated 6-13-99".

For some reason "Glen" was never put through the rigorous journalistic litmus tests that my links are being subjected to. Apparently "Glen" is "not just any source". Is it a coincidence that "Glen" has a pro-gay message? Lou franklin 05:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please stop changing the subject and explain how AFA and NARTH are appropriate sources for purportedly scientific studies? Rhobite 05:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Unlike "Glen", whose link was accepted wholehartedly, NARTH is a research organization. Your saying they are "biased sources" doesn't make it so.

What makes you think they are NOT "appropriate sources for purportedly scientific studies"?

Please stop vandalizing the article. Lou franklin 12:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The spurious vandalism allegations I have replied to on your talk page.

As for the reference dumping, finding lots of people who say the same thing and claiming that makes it true because there aren't as many references in the article which say the opposite thing is not good, NPOV article writing. Remember that it's not just about the references, it's the way you're presenting them. The way you're presenting them is to forge a link between homosexuality and paedophilia. Based on anecdotal evidence I'm sure I could conduct or find a study which showed that brutal dictators tend to keep dogs rather than cats, but if I then went and put a reference to the study in Dog, it wouldn't matter how good my study was, I would still be promoting a POV that was irrelevant to the article. --Malthusian (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: NARTH, its not really research when you already believe the conclusion of your experiment and wont accept any other. Since that's definitely the position NARTH is in, NARTH is not a research organization. But let's step back from NARTH for a minute. What on earth makes you think that AFA is an appropriate source? -Seth Mahoney 17:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

However passionate, this debate is pretty much irrelevant to the article at hand. The debate on points of fact on homosexual behaviour or homosexuality should be addressed in the article Homosexuality and not here -- this article should be restricted to discussion of societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Attempts to establish what "homosexuals" are belongs in the other article.

That having been said, these organizations are not appropriate sources for statements of fact because they are organizations with specific, clearly stated policy goals to oppose homosexuality. To claim they are not is plainly untrue. USA Today, on the other hand, is generally recognized as a neutral source, as is the journal Nature. Sources such as the AFA should be used to illustrate opposition to homosexuality, but not to establish points of fact on homosexual behaviour. So, their position on a link between homosexuality and pedophilia is relevant to the article -- but should point out that it is their POV. The converse argument would apply to GLAAD or the NGLTF, for that matter, and their counter-argument should be similarly presented. Cleduc 17:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Policies regarding appropriate sources

Does anyone know if Wikipedia has a stash of policies or guidelines regarding what qualifies as an appropriate source and what does not? For some reason, I seem to remember there being something like that, with a list of sources known to make untrue claims. Could have just been wishful thinking, though. -Seth Mahoney 22:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There's Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but I've not seen a list of sources known to be dubious before. It would be an incredibly long list anyway. --Malthusian (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful. That's better than a list of unreliable sources, I think. Thanks a lot. -Seth Mahoney 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Lou's bias obscuring the article's lack of fair treatment of conservative viewpoints

I'd like to throw two cents in on the article's overall direction.

This article is currently torn between a number of relatively liberal advocates, many of whom are gay, and Lou, who though he refuses to acknowledge the term is by all evidence an extremist homophobe by liberal standards. This doesn't do much to help find a reasonable NPOV.

Pre-AFD this article was generally significantly gay rights biased and gave insufficient coverage to those opposed to homosexuality. Regardless of where you personally fall on the belief spectrum, anti-gay political and personal attitudes are a major part of US society and should be at least accurately described here, hopefully in a neutral and non POV manner.

The changes since the AFD closed have fixed a few aggrevious things Lou was complaining about the article on WP and elsehwere.

Lou continues to want to make some more changes. He is attempting to do so by presenting as fact a series of materials and statements from advocacy groups, inserted into other sections of the article. In particular, the question of whether homosexuality is linked with pedophilia is a point he seems convinced is true and wants to drive home, despite a consensus (which I agree with completely) among others that the evidence is bunk.

The problem here is that there's currently no good place for descriptions of anti-gay groups and their beliefs to go. The extreme examples Lou wants to use are not going to find a home in other subsections, as they're clearly not Neutral POV in those. But it is fair and NPOV to state that there are people and groups who hold those beliefs. It is in fact a major failing of the article not to present those viewpoints.

I think there needs to be a major section describing these opposition groups and their beliefs. All the claims Lou wants to make regarding contentious claims by those groups are reasonable in that section... "The American Familiy Coalition believes that..." "Researchers with this institute have reported that...". That those groups believe those things are neutral POV statements.

The flip side is that, once that's done, some of the other claims elsewhere in the article should be rewritten to mirror that, backing off from asserting the article current dominant liberal opinion as fact quite so much.

I (assuming good faith) trust Lou to accurately represent the beliefs and statements of the anti-homosexual groups. I think that starting such a section now is an important next step.

Georgewilliamherbert 10:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Such a section could certainly begin at 7.8. It would fit nicely under "History in the west", and right after "LGBT civil rights movement". It could begin with, for example, the Anita Bryant crusade, and go from there. I'm going to do a little restructuring in a minute, and we can decide how to fit in contemporary stuff after that. But what does everyone think about starting a new history section for reactionary politics? -Seth Mahoney 18:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, first set of changes made. The article now has three major sections: The intro stuff, with the religion and whatnot, a section titled "Repressive reactions and rhetoric" which contains all the "gays caused the earthquake" nonsense, and the history section at the end, which I thought was a good idea because the other sections sort of lay the conceptual groundwork for the history section, and it is helpful to understand, for example, that people have seriously made the claim that gay people are responsible for natural disasters. Now, I know that maybe "Repressive reactions and rhetoric" is maybe not the best title (but, hey, three "R"s!), but it is morning for me and its the best I could do. It seems logical enough to me: These are attempts to repress homosexuality, to keep it from peeking out of the closet or whatever. But, you know, change it if you want. The idea wasn't to make the article pro-gay, but to visually link several sections that are conceptually related. Which brings me to... This would be a good section for many of the things the AFA and NARTH, etc. are doing and saying (since, maybe, they're too recent to go under history). So here's what I propose: As above, a section covering reactionary movements such as Anita Bryant's, and maybe an additional section covering the AIDS crisis and the ways that has changed the picture; and an additional section under "Repressive reactions and rhetoric" (or whatever it ends up being called) detailing the claims of ultraconservative groups out there and what they're doing. Sound good? -Seth Mahoney 18:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay! So anyway, for those of you who are interested in improving this article, rather than converting it from one (perceived) opinion piece into another: Any ideas? -Seth Mahoney 19:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The list of people Lou chose to mediate with is ... interesting ... As is the timing, given that there's now a good faith effort going on to bring in some fair neutral POV from "the other side". Georgewilliamherbert 09:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly about the list of people do you find [dot dot dot] interesting? Lou franklin 03:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sex Focus

I believe its mentioned in the article that one of the attitudes is the belief that gay people (men in particular) as obsessed with sex. What I don't think is there that probably should be is the related equation some people see between mentioning orientation and same-gender relationships and intimate details of the sex lives of gay people. I, myself, was having a conversation with someone who heard that a job applicant had mentioned he was gay at the end of the interview to be clear that his prospective employer would not have an issue with it. The person I was speaking to was perplexed that it came up and said something along the lines of: "I don't need to know about his sex life". I found that a telling statement as a straight person is free to discuss his girlfriend in public and it is seen as a normal, wholesome thing, but some view a gay man mentioning that he's gay or talking about his boyfriend in the same way as suddenly giving inappropriately graphic sexual information. There is the equation in the minds of some that "I have a boyfriend" equals "I love anal sex and want to tell you exactly how we do it".

From my rant above, I am obviously not the person to add this concept to the article. But I think it is a significant aspect of Societal Attitudes towards homosexuality that deserves some mention. --Chesaguy 02:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I have not "speculated" about anybody's sexual preferences. The user pages of many of the people who edit the article say "this user is interested in LGBT issues", "LGBT Wikipedians", "this user supports equal rights for queer people", "I am Gay", "this user identifies as gay", "this user is a sheep herder on Brokeback Mountain". That's not speculation. That's fact.

Guanaco, what "accusatory statements" have I made?

Why was I asked to fill out an "issues to be mediated" section if nobody was going to read it? Lou franklin 05:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The mediation is over because I believe the article could be best improved if open discussion were to take place on this page. I am not going to address your other questions, because I have no interest in a tangential debate. —Guanaco 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You said that I have made "accusatory statements". What were they? Lou franklin 05:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You claimed that this article is controlled by a "well-organized group of extremists". Accusations such as this are not conducive to compromise and neutral editing. Rhobite 06:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

To arbitration we go. Lou franklin 06:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Vulgarity

When a 12 year old comes to Wikipedia to do research for a Junior High School paper, do we really want him to read about "cocksuckers"? Is that word really neccesary? Lou franklin 12:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

When is the last time you sat in on the conversations of 12 year olds? Anyway, there is an express Wikipedia policy that we are not to censor material for the consumption of children. Haiduc 13:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, for the record, for addressing specific complaints this time. As Haiduc said, Wikipedia is not censored. Take a look at fuck and cunt, for example. Additionally, it is a direct quote from a man directly involved in what is being discussed, given to the press at the time. I can't really think of anything more pertinent to add to the article than that. -Seth Mahoney 17:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My question was "is the word really neccesary?" You honestly have no problem posting "cocksucker" on an online encyclopedia for kids to read? Lou franklin 02:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Lou, Wikipedia issues aside, I think the benefit to a youth of being shown graphically what scoundrels politicians can be - instead of the idolized one-dimensional images that are projected by the media - far outweighs the possible harm of lowering their inhibitions to the use of violent language. Haiduc 02:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But what if some parents aren't comfortable with you lowering the inhibitions of their 12 year old? What happens if some kid includes "cocksucker" in his report and hands it into his teacher, not knowing that "cocksucker" is an obscenity? Are you really OK with that? Is that word really central to the article? Lou franklin 03:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I hardly consider "cocksucker" to be violent language -- though it is tasteless and bigoted in this context, of course. Unless one wishes to whitewash history and claim that Joseph McCarthy was not a demagogue or that he didn't consider homosexuals intrinsically enemies of the state, this quote is useful. The historical record clearly shows he did specifically target homosexuals (and communists), and this quote quite graphically demonstrates that fact. It also quite clearly illustrates societal attitudes towards homosexuality in a way that endless descriptive writing cannot. The quote stands. The only thing better would be a Roy Cohn quote to accompany it.

As to whether this should be censored, anyone reading this deeply about homosexuality will doubtless be exposed at some point to the concept of cocksucking (assuming they have been living in a box or a convent since birth). It's hardly an obscure activity. Homosexual males are not the only ones that participate in said activity, and most cocksucking is most likely done in a non-homosexual context (unless one assumes that homosexuals are both extremely busy and more numerous than estimated). I would also note that the research activities of a 12-year-old child are the responsibility of his or her parents. Cleduc 18:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm working on a Roy Cohn quote to accompany it. And any teacher worth their weight in textbooks would let slide a sourced quote from McCarthy regarding cocksuckers, especially if s/he had assigned homework where that quote would be important. -Seth Mahoney 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"anyone reading this deeply about homosexuality will doubtless be exposed at some point to the concept of cocksucking (assuming they have been living in a box or a convent since birth)."

Do you really know who will and will not be reading this article? There is nothing to prevent kids from reading it, and you can't make the assumption that it won't be read by somebody in a convent either. Even if the reader had, as you so elequently said, been "exposed at some point to the concept of cocksucking", does that mean it is appropriate to include here? Lou franklin 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue originally wasn't phrased in terms of who will or will not be reading the article, but who might use it as a source for research. You implied that a 12 year old might use the article for a school report, much to his/her chagrin. I was addressing that statement. Please be more accurate when addressing others' comments. As for the issue of a kid being exposed to the word 'cocksucker', I stand with Haiduc when he said: "When is the last time you sat in on the conversations of 12 year olds?" -Seth Mahoney 20:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you really trying to argue for saying the word "cocksucker" in front of children? Does using the word "cocksucker" in an encyclopedia article serve that 12 year old kid's interests, or does it serve the interests of the author? Lou franklin 20:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A. I don't know any 12-year-olds who don't already know the word.

B. Wikipedia policy is that vulgarity, where notable, is to be left in, and the articles not edited to preventively protect children's innocence.

C. It's still a notable quote and on topic here.

Offensive? Sure. Obscene? Sure. But it happened, and is notable for representing one aspect of how homosexuals were treated at the time. Georgewilliamherbert 20:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored for the sake of children. Period. Almost every 12 year old knows the term anyway, so I don't even see what your problem is. BTW, don't make edits AGAINST consensus and say "per talk page." --Rory096 20:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points. They didn't address my question, but they were interesting. My question was "Does using the word 'cocksucker' in an encyclopedia article serve that 12 year old kid's interests, or does it serve the interests of the author?"

If you are honestly the type of person who has no problem with posting "cocksucker" on the internet where children can read it, there's not much I can do to stop you. There is no doubt that your group will continue to tag team revert my changes and reinsert the word "cocksucker" over and over again for all to see.

Your attempt at justifying it by saying "almost every 12 year old knows the term anyway, so I don't even see what your problem is" is lame and disengenuous. You know exactly what the problem is: You posted the word "cocksucker" where children can read it. Besides, saying "almost every 12 year old" means that there are some that do not know the term. And even if some children have heard the term before, are you saying that the more they hear it the better?

I understand what Wikipedia's policy is, but what is your personal policy? If you have no problem poluting the minds of children, I can't stop you. Ultimately you are the one who has to live with yourself. Lou franklin 02:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice strawmen, Lou. The argument isn't that Wikipedia's policies allow X, so we should do X. The argument is that Wikipedia's policies allow the use of the word 'cocksucker', and the quote from McCarthy, in which appears the word 'cocksucker', illustrates the issues raised in that section more consisely and more clearly than could 5000 "clean" words. Quotes make history personal, and a personal history is a more understandable history. -Seth Mahoney 02:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia's policy allows you to curse. But don't you care that, because of you, kids will have more exposure to obscenities? Lou franklin 03:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't you care that, because of ideas like yours, kids in the US have an extremely limited understanding of history, if it exists at all? -Seth Mahoney 04:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I personally don't have a problem with allowing children to hear obscenities. For one, it's just a word, and it can't hurt anyone. It's also extremely adultist to say that children shouldn't be allowed to hear obscenities just because they're children. Either way, however, it doesn't matter what someone's conscience says. It's a valid quote that contributes to the article, and so it should stay. Stop pushing your morals onto other people. --Rory096 03:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Civil Rights"

The terms "LGBT civil rights movement" and "Gay rights movement" should be removed. Gay people have all of the civil rights that everybody else has. Nobody, heterosexuals nor homosexuals, have the right to "marry" somebody of the same sex. Our civil rights are identical and as such the term "gay civil rights movement" is not meaningful. The term should be removed. I thought that a compromise would be to change it to "so-called 'LGBT civil rights movement'", but I am really not all that comfortable with even that. Lou franklin 12:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Point of fact: people do in fact have the right to marry somebody of the same sex -- presently in Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and in the US state of Massachusetts. This I view as irrelevant to the argument of whether the LGBT civil rights movement is a civil rights movement, but a point of fact nonetheless. Cleduc 22:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"So-called LGBT civil rights movement" is more POV than "LGBT civil rights movement", since "so-called" implies the POV "its not really the case", whereas at least "LGBT civil rights movement", agree with it or not, is what it is called. Anyway, there's more going on there than gay marriage, your analysis of which leaves much to be desired. -Seth Mahoney 17:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"So-called" implies that "its not really the case" because it is in fact not really the case. There's nothing POV about it. Civil rights are things like voting, being allowed to sit at the front of the bus, or being go to desegregated schools and other public places. Crying "LGBT civil rights movement" is clearly propeganda since gay people already have those civil rights. Lou franklin 00:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add gratuitous scare quotes around portions you disagree with. Rhobite 18:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't vandalize the article. The quotes were added for a legitimate reason that was addressed in the dicussion page. Lou franklin 00:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Lou, the point of the discussion page is to achieve a consensus on the article. Saying you're going to use the article as your soapbox and then doing so does not make it alright. --Malthusian (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Malthusian. For a reason to be "legitimate" it cannot only be addressed on the discussion page; a consensus must be reached. There is no consensus in your favor here, Lou; it seems that the consensus is in fact against the addition of quotes. Please don't call something vandalism unless it is legitimately vandalism. If you would like a definition of vandalism, I can give you one and/or direct you to the appropriate Wikipedia page.

Lou, believe it or not we really are trying to work with you here by incorporating conservative viewpoints. That was a legitimate issue. But we can't make the entire article NPOV just to satisfy you. Please try to work with us in good faith.

Hbackman 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there is no consensus here because so many people here are gay activists.

Civil rights are rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship, especially the freedoms guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments (slavery and due process). That is a fact; it is not debatable. While black people were denied voting rights, for example, gay citizens have identical civil rights to every other American. That is a fact. So where is the dispute? How could there be a lack of consensus about that? Black people had a civil rights movement. That is very different from this so-called "LGBT civil rights movement" Lou franklin 02:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Lou's point should be heeded to some degree, though; the key issue I think he's getting at here is that there's a disagreement about the definition of marriage, with one side being that marriage is by definition between one man and one woman, and the other side being that the definition should include same-sex couples. There is a strong minority viewpoint that it should be inclusive of same-sex couples, but a majority in all states in which it has been put to an initiative (including California) has voted for the one man one woman definition. The anti-same-sex-marriage initiative several years ago in widely majority liberal California passed everywhere in the state except in the San Francisco Bay Area.

This article, and the Same-sex marriage article, are playing down this issue and the various initiative votes which have been held and which presumably accurately judge public opinion as a whole on the matter.

The definitions of civil rights evolve over time; fifty years ago, I doubt that even most gay or lesbian couples would have thought that they should or could have the right to marry. Now they do, and they are supported by a large minority fraction of the population. But it is a minority.

The current articles playing down the popular votes / initiatives on the subject does neither side in the debate justice. It ignores established fact on the ground that a majority of people voted against allowing same-sex marriages, which obfuscates the true societal majority opinion. Presuming for a moment the hypothetical 1/3 democrat 1/3 republican 1/3 centrist split in the US, the voting results indicate that, outside a few very gay-friendly metropolitan areas, the centrists may not be anti-gay, but they nearly all don't support same-sex marriage. Gay rights critics are right on that point.

From the gay rights advocacy point of view, one would think that accepting and addressing the current majority opinion would be the path forwards to attaining their goal (presumably, by convincing the people in the center to change their opinion, if that is in fact what can and will eventually happen). Playing down that the majority and centrist opinions are largely against same-sex marriage is a play for media mindshare, perhaps, but not effective at changing voters minds.

This needs to be addressed in a NPOV manner. But whose definition of civil rights you use does matter a whole lot here, and the article should point that debate and issue out. Georgewilliamherbert 01:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Remember there are other countries outside the US. And several of them have legalised gay marriage. None of them have banned it again as yet. Supporters of gay marriage may be a minority in the US, but in other Western countries public opinion is either for it or doesn't care enough to oppose it. --Malthusian (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

These are fair points, which aren't in that section of the article at this time (hint). Georgewilliamherbert 22:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out again that the LGBT civil rights movement is not just about marriage. There are issues of job security, access to resources, and even right to life issues that are also, or have historically also, been addressed by the movement(s). It wasn't that long ago that it was deemed a psychologist's duty to lobotomize problem homosexuals, for their own good. That issue was a part of the gay rights movement. Anti-gay violence is a part of the gay rights movement. There are instances where what the gay rights movement(s) address(es) are unarguably human/civil rights issues, and downplaying that fact by scare-quoting the "LGBT rights" or adding "so-called" in front of it is POV. -Seth Mahoney 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Those are fair points, which aren't in that section of the article at this time (hint). Georgewilliamherbert 22:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to work on the article chronologically, starting with the nationalism section, then on to gay rights movements, then on to movements opposed to the gay rights movement, and then to the 1980s and the AIDS crisis. So if they aren't in the article by the time I get to the appropriate section(s), they will be when I'm done. It may also be appropriate to paraphrase some of the content in Homosexuality and psychology as part of the historical development section and then try to show how the gay rights movement(s) arose in opposition to the rhetoric of psychology and nationalists. But I don't really have any definite plans for that one way or another - it depends on what info I'm able to dig up. Thanks, by the way, for acting as a voice of reason in this all too heated debate. -Seth Mahoney 22:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a paragraph summing up the "special rights" argument of the Christian right. Feel free to reword it. Rhobite 01:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I had a go at explaining the "special rights" position better, since my immediate reaction to the argument was "What? Surely it's heterosexuals who have the special right if they're the only group that can marry?" But the argument that gays ignore polygamists etc. and therefore aren't interested in 'civil rights', is a logical one; I'm not saying it's a good argument (it's a blatant slippery slope), but it does make strictly logical sense. --Malthusian (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Good first steps. Thanks to both of you. The polygamists tie-in is a good example of where society as a whole concluded that restricting the definition of legal marriage happened, has been widely accepted, etc,; that demonstrates that society as a whole can and has restricted the definition in the past. Pointing out that such a restriction has been made and societally accepted as good before is not slippery slope. Whether the application of that logic to same-sex marriage is slippery slope or not is I think the crux of the debate about whose definition of civil rights you use... Georgewilliamherbert 01:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a stupid argument. It's not a special right - once gay marriage is legalized, anyone will be able to marry anyone else, whether they're gay or not. I like the rephrase, thanks. Rhobite 02:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this addition adequately explains opposition to calling the LGBT civil rights movement a civil rights movement. Lou, perhaps you have something more to add to it, as you are most familiar with such arguments? The scare quotes are unnecessary and POV, and consensus is very clear that they are not appropriate. Cleduc 17:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That in no way "adequately explains opposition to calling the LGBT civil rights movement a civil rights movement". It is not a matter of opinion. The term "LGBT civil rights movement" is incorrect and should be removed.

Civil rights are rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship, especially the freedoms guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments (slavery and due process). I'm sorry, but that's what the term "civil rights" means.

Which civil rights are being referred to in the phrase "LGBT civil rights movement"? Are gay people being taken into slavery? Are they being denied their right to vote? Exactly which civil rights are gay people being deprived of?

So far you've discussed "gay marriage", "job security", and "access to resources" but of course none of these are civil rights. How can there be a "LGBT civil rights movement" when gay people possess the identical civil rights that all other citizens have?

This issue was discussed at length in the past by some of the same people who edit this article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:LGBT_rights_opposition#.22rights.22_is_a_POV_term ): "I agree with changing the cat names so they doesn't presuppose that certain LGBT "rights" really are civil rights. My suggestion was Category:LGBT civil and legal issues but I am not so invested in that." But I am assuming good faith. You must have just forgotten.

Also, in the sentence "They [conservative opponents] argue, for example, that in seeking the right to marry gays are seeking a special right for themselves". I changed "in seeking the right to marry" to "in seeking the right to marry a member of the same sex". I'm not sure why this change keeps getting reverted. What possible objection could you have to that? Gay people are not "seeking the right to marry" they already have the right to marry. They have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like all other American citizens have. The issue is that they want the right to marry somebody of the same sex. So what is the problem with saying that in the article? Lou franklin 19:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The LGBT civil rights movement exists worldwide, not just in the US. Other countries (and some US states) have in fact recognized civil rights applying to LGBT individuals -- such as the right to marry their chosen gender, protection from employment discrimination, access to housing, protection from violent death, etc, based on their LGBT identity. I suggest reading the article Civil rights and check the definition there, instead of using the simplistic definition given above. Cleduc 19:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"The simplistic definition given above" is from the dictionary. Given what we've seen with this article, the dictionary is considerably more accurate than Wikipedia. It sounds like you agreeing that gay people do not lack any of the civil rights that the rest of the citizens have. Awfully hard to call it a "civil rights movements", wouldn't you say? Lou franklin 20:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary entries are necessarily limited in size. US dictionaries focus on the US. The Merriam-Webster entry has very limited geographic scope (13th Amendment?). The American Heritage entry has a definition which is less restrictive. The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary entry is less US-focused, but restrictive on protected classes.

Encyclopedias have more room. The Columbia Encyclopedia mentions "gay-rights" legislation -- and the gay-rights movement article describes it as a movement to "protect the civil rights of homosexuals." Encarta makes the distinction between the Civil Rights (Movement in the United States) (MLK et al) and Civil Rights and Civil Liberties -- which is much broader and contains a fair amount of information about the LGBT civil rights movement. This establishes neutral, reliable sources documenting a link between the term "civil rights" with the LGBT civil rights movement.

To further refute the claim that the term "civil rights" can only be applied to MLK etc, I'll throw in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which is also consistently referred to as a civil rights law. From the text it clearly an extension of existing US federal civil rights law to disabled persons, and is enforced by the US Department of Justice's Civil Rights division. You will note that while this is covered in encyclopedia entries, it is not covered in dictionary entries. This establishes that the dictionary definition of "civil rights" does not encompass all movements which are commonly referred to as civil rights movements.

Ah, "dictionary entries are necessarily limited in size". I see. And that is the reason that none of the dictionaries you linked to include "gay marriage" as a civil right. Interesting.

Yes. And none of them mentioned the disabled. That is my point, and thank you, it is interesting. Cleduc 03:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Since none of the dictionaries think that it is a civil rights movement, and since "Encarta makes the distinction between the Civil Rights" why shouldn't we? Since the "gay rights movement" is very different from what most people think of when they think of the "civil rights movement", it seems perfectly reasonable to make that distinction by preceding it with "so-called". Lou franklin 02:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Encarta has an article entitled "Civil Rights (Movement in the United States)" specific to MLK et al, and then they have a wider article about "Civil Rights and Civil Liberties" which is worldwide in scope, which includes LGBT civil rights, and which specifically refers to them as civil rights. I have demonstrated through reference to multiple reputable, unbiased sources that there are and have been many civil rights movements, many kinds of civil rights, and that the words commonly used to refer LGBT civil rights specifically, and other types of civil rights generally, are "civil rights". If "what most people think of" is your argument, then you need to provide references to reputable sources which document what "most people" consider a civil rights movement to be. Otherwise, this line of debate is at a definitive end. Cleduc 03:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I laid out "marry their chosen gender, protection from employment discrimination, access to housing, protection from violent death, etc, based on their LGBT identity." Basing these rights on the specifically "protected class" is how civil rights legislation works -- it describes the class of people being protected, and it describes how. Marriage or civil partnership, employment, housing, and protection from lynching are considered civil rights in law, in many jurisdictions (though not by some people, or by the US federal government). It is very easy to call the LGBT civil rights movement it a civil rights movement, as it is commonly called that (see point established above). You can disagree that the LGBT class of citizens deserves specific civil rights that they seek, but to claim that there is no commonly-identified class of people who seek such rights, or that their movement to seek such rights is not commonly called a civil rights movement, is unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence in reliable sources.

Finally, to claim that Wikipedia is not a useful source is not likely to gain much traction on Wikipedia. If you dispute the findings of the Civil rights article, take them there. As an aside, it doesn't hurt to contribute to more than one article. Cleduc 21:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"The change in attitudes of Western societies"

This sentence makes no sense and should be removed: "The change in attitudes of Western societies regarding homosexuality have led to a greater acceptance of gay men and women into both secular and religious institutions starting in the latter part of the 20th Century". "The change in attitude" and "greater acceptance" are the same thing. One has not led to the other. Lou franklin 12:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes in attitude relate to what people think, acceptance relates to what people do. They are not the same thing. --Malthusian (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. You can accept something without taking any action at all. The first thing has not "led to" the other. Lou franklin 00:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But the sentence doesn't say that acceptance led to something -- it says that a change in attitudes led to greater acceptance. Hbackman 01:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that. I have provided the exact quote above. Here it is again:

"The change in attitudes of Western societies regarding homosexuality have led to a greater acceptance of gay men and women into both secular and religious institutions starting in the latter part of the 20th Century."

The sentence is blatant propaganda. It was included in the so-called "LGBT civil rights movement" section in order to portray this alleged "civil rights movement" as noble because it "changed attitudes", and changing those attitudes has "led to a greater acceptance".

If you have proof that "the change in attitudes of Western societies regarding homosexuality have led to a greater acceptance of gay men and women into both secular and religious institutions" then cite it. If you have proof that the "civil rights movement" has caused those changes in attitude, then cite that too. Otherwise it should really be removed. Lou franklin 02:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Barney Frank? Gene Robinson? Rhobite 03:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What about them? Was listing two names followed by question marks supposed to prove that the "LGBT civil rights movement" has caused this alleged "change in attitudes of Western societies"? That is speculation on a couple of levels. The fact that there is one gay Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire and one gay congressman in Massachusetts doesn't prove "acceptance" and it certainly doesn't prove that the "LGBT civil rights movement" was the cause of this "acceptance". Lou franklin 10:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Causality would be tricky to prove. One could argue the opposite point effectively (that inclusion into institutions caused the change in society, not vice-versa), or another argument altogether, and would need to be sourced (to Lou's point). I've changed the sentence to show that they happened at the same time period (change in attitude & inclusion in institutions) as that is hardly a controversial statement.

However, I don't understand the point to this sentence. It is an observation, but it leads to no conclusion, and I don't know what it is doing inside this section. Is this an attempt to credit the civil rights movement for these changes? If so, it should just say so -- and if that is controversial, then the article should include alternate theories (general rises in liberalism, secularlism, or sunspots, I don't know). Cleduc 21:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Motives

There was a very telling comment made just above.

From the gay rights advocacy point of view, one would think that accepting and addressing the current majority opinion would be the path forwards to attaining their goal (presumably, by convincing the people in the center to change their opinion, if that is in fact what can and will eventually happen). Playing down that the majority and centrist opinions are largely against same-sex marriage is a play for media mindshare, perhaps, but not effective at changing voters minds.

This needs to be addressed in a NPOV manner.

Are the editors of this article concerned with making it the best and most truthful article it can be, or are they advertising?

Should the best "path forwards to attaining their goal from the gay rights advocacy point of view" be the key factor for those who edit this article? Is that really what Wikipedia is for?

Should people who write encyclopedia articles be concerned with "playing down majority and centrist opinions", "media mindshare", and the strategy that will be most "effective at changing voters' minds"?

If somebody was writing an encyclopedia article solely for the benefit of the audience, without pushing any agenda, why would they object to the removal of the word "cocksucker"? Does including that word serve the audience or does it serve the purposes of the author? Lou franklin 11:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No choice but to report you for another 3 revert rule violation. Clearly there is a consensus to keep McCarthy's remarks, and to remove scare quotes from the LGBT civil rights movement. There's a point where further discussion becomes pointless, and I think we are getting very close to that point. Rhobite 17:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Lou's views need to be included in this article: they were sorely missing before. However, I've had a bellyfull of his accusations and assumptions of bad faith. I'm beginning to see a pattern: Lou loses an argument on the discussion page, he ignores the other responses and continues reverting, claims others are "vandalizing" the article, and then engages in personal attacks. May we please stick to discussing the article? Cleduc 20:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the pattern. I don't think that Lou's views need to be included in the article. NPOV does not mean that all views get represented. It means that the truth gets represented. And Lou's strongest view, the one he has Agued the most for, is that gay men are, by and large, child molesters. And that view is false. He hasn't been willing to go for a compromise and say, "groups like the AFA and NARTH hold the view that gay men are statistically more likely to be child molesters, and they argue primarily based on the claims of the 1983 ISIS Survey" or something similar. He has not been interested in discussing placing it in the historical developments section. He wants it listed as fact. And, again, with respect to facts, NPOV does not mean that every crackpot gets his say. -Seth Mahoney 21:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Lou's views, for better or worse, are "societal attitudes towards homosexuality" and when this whole thing started, his views were absent -- and as a result, the article was unbalanced. Cleduc 21:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no - I agree that the article has been (and still is) unbalanced. That's why I've been working on it. He, however, insists that his views be presented not as attitudes toward homosexuality but as facts, and that anything less is not NPOV. And that, unfortunately, is what I suspect will be the last part of the pattern: A good faith attempt will be made here to really cover the subject matter, and Lou will insist that it isn't enough, that a "gay cabal" is preventing him from spreading "the truth" that gay men are going around molesting children en masse. We'll see, I guess, but I don't see any signs that this is calming down, even with the substantial work that has already been done on the article. -Seth Mahoney 22:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The views of religious fundamentalists toward homosexuality absolutely have to be outlined here. And not just in the United States. And not just christians. On the Lou subject, I find the "gay cabal" accusations hilarous - next I expect references to the Protocols of the Elders of Sodom. Cleduc 22:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Lou's been off on at least one conservative web discussion board complaining that he and conservative opinions in general are being supressed here. I forcefully and repeatedly expressed that he's giving conservatism a bad name, and that his beliefs are far fringe and shouldn't be associated with mainstream conservatism, but all that happened was a mini-flame-war.

To the extent that Lou represents a fringe, that fringe's beliefs are notable, but should be presented with appropriate space for how small a part of the population believes them. The proportion of US citizens who believe that gays are more likely to molest children is miniscule.

To the extent he's pointing out valid NPOV issues and areas where conservative opinions were not being given fair treatment, his input is as valid as anyone else. He did correctly identify several sections which were pretty biased, and have been greatly improved since this started.

To the degree he believes that resistance to improvement is some gay conspiracy here... ignore him. What he believes about you is irrelevant to the article. The article is far improved. Other than his fringe viewpoint re molestation, there is good positive progress and agreement on points which are coming up.

Regarding the McCarthy quote... it's historical fact and seems notable and connected to article topic, as offensive as it is. Maybe WP should have article warning labels for profanity, but lack of such doesn't mean we should edit it out contrary to other established policy that notable, non-gratuitous expletives are ok. Georgewilliamherbert 22:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Lou is pointing out valid issues. I think that the problem here is that he doesn't intend to point out valid issues in a way that encourages compromise on them. People here had to step back in order to realize that he was actually making good points about deficiencies in the article, because he was so combative and uninterested in compromising that he was difficult to seriously listen to. Most WP editors are going to have a knee-jerk reaction to people like Lou and dismiss everything that they say. I don't believe that he is really ignorable as you suggest, though, given that he repeatedly reverts the article to what he believes is the truth and that he has taken editors to mediation and attempted to take them to arbitration (did that ever go through? Anyone know?). We can't simply ignore his more extreme views when those views cause a significant level of conflict with the surrounding community and when they require that someone always be ready to revert edits that he makes despite community consensus against those edits. Hbackman 22:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the editors backed out of mediation due to Lou's insistence on referring to editors of this page as a "gay cabal", and it was dismissed, followed by accusations by Lou that the dismissal was due to the mediator's participation in the cabal. Arbitration was rejected because this is primarily a content dispute. -Seth Mahoney 23:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Lou's failed so far in attempts to get the article deleted, take it to mediation, and to file a Request for Arbitration. There seems to be no support to be found in Wikipedia administrative venues for his claims to be being supressed. The only things left for him to do are make arguments or participate in discussions here, and edit the article, subject to the same reversion and counter-editing as anyone else. And I think that clearly, if he does abusive edits, they aren't going to stand... even I would revert claims about pedophilia in gays. He isn't dropping his points, but what else can he do? Sockpuppets to get around 3RR? Meatpuppets by recruiting on other web boards? Too many people are watching for him to get away with that. Georgewilliamherbert 23:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you pointed out, Cleduc, the necessity of covering more than just the views of fundamentalist Christians in the US. There are lots of other views, historical and contemporary, that make for good reading, and it is a good idea for all of us to keep that in mind. Regarding warning labels, that has been tried on Wikipedia in the past, and squashed. There is a strong anti-censorship sentiment on wikipedia, and such labels are often perceived, I think, as the beginning of a slippery slope. Regarding the quote more specifically, I think it is worthwhile to keep in mind that this is an article called "societal attitudes toward homosexuality", that what it covers is of a sexual nature and will sometimes of necessity be explicit. If the quote appeared on McCarthy or US Senators or something, there might be a case for its removal, but if someone is researching something pertinent to the topic of this article, they're not going to be a middle schooler doing a book report. -Seth Mahoney 22:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

How could you possibly know that "if someone is researching something pertinent to the topic of this article, they're not going to be a middle schooler doing a book report"? Many schools have gay/straight alliance groups for which kids might very well investigate this topic. A kid doing a report on civil rights might stumble upon this article as it is written by way of "related topics" links or via a search engine. A kid might just be surfing the net like anybody else and stumble upon this article. I don't think it's far-fetched at all to assume that children are reading this article, as a matter of fact I think it is quite likely.

Is there something about the title of the article that would suggest to a reader that what it "covers is of a sexual nature and will sometimes of necessity be explicit"? Chesaguy just finished bemoaning the fact that "some view a gay man mentioning that he's gay or talking about his boyfriend in the same way as suddenly giving inappropriately graphic sexual information". Isn't that what you are doing here? Isn't it possible for you to discuss "societal attitudes towards homosexuality" without discussing "cocksucking"? Or do you think that "lock up your kids if you don't like it", as Cleduc suggested when he made reverts, is really a practical solution?

Do you really think it's reasonable for a reader to assume that an article entitled "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" would include obscene language describing sex acts? The word "cocksucker" adds very little value and is not appropriate for the wide audience that the article has by virtue of that fact that it is posted on the internet. I understand that Wikipedia's policy allows you to curse, but I am asking you to have some integrity and do the right thing. You know the difference between right and wrong. The fact that Wikipedia allows you to use profanity in front of children doesn't mean you are required to.

Regarding the original question at the top of this section:

"Should the best 'path forwards to attaining their goal from the gay rights advocacy point of view' be the key factor for those who edit this article? Is that really what Wikipedia is for?"

"Should people who write encyclopedia articles be concerned with 'playing down majority and centrist opinions', 'media mindshare', and the strategy that will be most 'effective at changing voters minds'?"

Not one person answered. Instead of answers we heard "I've had a bellyfull of his accusations", "his beliefs are far fringe", and I was called a "crackpot" and "combative". But not one person addressed the question.

Doesn't it bother anyone here that a discussion between editors of a supposedly impartial article would include a conversation about which strategy will be most "effective at changing voters' minds" and what "would be the path forwards to attaining the goal of gay rights advocates"? How could those terms have found their way to the discussion page of a NPOV article? Lou franklin 19:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, if you are going to make direct personal accusations, I invite you to get the facts straight. I have made two contributions to this article in recent history, neither of them was a revert, and neither one included the word "cocksucker". I made that comment in my edit comment on the talk page -- and I stand by it. The world should not be censored to meet a fundamentalist's vision of what children should be allowed to read.

You added these words: "lock up your kids if you don't like it". I apologize if those words were not associated with a revert as I suggested, but is that really a helpful recommendation? Lou franklin 20:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologize without qualifiers or don't bother. And yes, in my opinion it is the *only* way to prevent children from being exposed to that word. They certainly couldn't go to the playground, either (see "conversations of 12-year-olds" above). Cleduc 21:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your position. You are saying that the only way to prevent children from being exposed to the word is to lock them up. Therefore we should post "cocksucker" on the internet where young kids can read it. Is that pretty much your position? Lou franklin 02:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The word should be used as necessary to illustrate a point, yes -- as you are using it right now, I might add, in a post that any child can read. These arguments have already been made in the section "vulgarity" above, ad nauseum. Cleduc 03:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

See straw man. -Seth Mahoney 02:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

See Contributing to the delinquency of a minor [1] Lou franklin 02:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to argue that McCarthy was contributing to the delinquency of minors, that's fine with me. -Seth Mahoney 04:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, nobody has to address questions raised on this page -- the important thing is the article itself. If we spent our time chasing down every accusation and theory raised on the talk pages there would be no articles written at all. Specifically, answering accusations which question the good faith of editors is not very productive. Cleduc 20:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Lou, why on earth are you attacking these people now? My point was that balanced coverage and finding better NPOV is better for everyone "on both sides", not just from a detached perspective. That's not an attack, and pointing it out isn't a wedge for you to go off on the evil gay cabal you keep seeing over here. Georgewilliamherbert 20:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality and the modern state

Some points to discuss from recent additions:

"This, however, was not what US politicians had in mind."

What did US politicians have in mind? I was considering changing this to "These individuals are not the ones that US politicians targeted," but I wasn't sure where this phrase is going... it sort of dangles, invitingly.

This section mentions briefly Russia and Germany, but almost completely is focused upon the US. Perhaps subheadings? Russia, Germany, United States? Nigeria would be good too -- I'll try to dig something up. Cleduc 02:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Notes on Russia and Germany: These topics are already covered in the articles linked to in that sentence (although Russia is surprisingly scantily covered, considering the cold - info on contemporary nationalist movements and their anti-gay rhetoric is surprisingly lacking, as is any real analysis of communism's cult of motherhood, ideas of nationalism in the Soviet Union, that sort of thing). There's certainly some worthwhile summary work to be done there, though, and probably more research. There's also info in (I think I linked to this) Socialism and sexual orientation which can be added here. And, undoubtedly some interesting stuff to be done regarding unmentioned states (like Cuba?).

Regarding that weird sentence, yeah. We're gonna have to get a feel for that. Those groups were targeted by the US Government at various times, and for various reasons, and The Mattachine Society was investigated during the McCarthy hearings or whatever. But they weren't really after gay rights-type organizations. They were after gay men in US Government positions. So I don't really know how to keep that concise and clear, especially considering I still have a little more research to incorporate into the section. But I'm open to suggestions. -Seth Mahoney 03:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Lou's recent changes

Lou recently added to the article:

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson called the comparison of the civil rights movement to the "gay rights movement" a "disgrace to a black American". He said that "homosexuality is not a civil right. What we have is a bunch of radical homosexuals trying to attach their agenda to the struggles of the 1960s." [2]

I can't really see any reason to leave this out, unless it was pulled out of context. Actually, there is one: It seems to create an picture of black men as especially homophobic. But maybe that will lessen once I get around to fleshing out the section on opposition to the gay rights movement? Actually, I'm thinking most of this criticism should go there, but for right now I guess it can stay where it is. Lou also added:

Many people feel that some homosexuals lack a moral foundation and would engage in vulgar behavior such as using obscenities in front of children.

This is unacceptable. "Many people" is undefined. Without attribution, this is just weasely language. For the record, Lou, I'm not going to find acceptable, and I think most of the other editors here are with me, any attempts by you to construe the gay rights movement(s) as solely concerned with same-sex marriage, as you did with your initial paragraph. -Seth Mahoney 03:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer that the obscenities be removed, but you win. Change it to "some people". Lou franklin 04:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Some people" is still a weasel phrase. —Guanaco 04:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

How so? Lou franklin 04:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't the number of people. The issue is that you don't attribute the view to any specific group of people. I left "many people" in in the current version, by the way, though I'd prefer it was specifically attributed. -Seth Mahoney 04:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, take a look. I think, even though the wording is the same, it no longer reads like a weasel phrase, because it is followed by a couple specific people with exactly that view. -Seth Mahoney 04:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Lou is alluding to the inclusion of the McCarthy "cocksucker" remark with that sentence about using obscenities in front of children. It's self-referential and it goes against Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Rhobite 04:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Specifically, it should read "Lou franklin feels that ..." -- and unless Lou can cite sources, this is original research and should be removed. Cleduc 10:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There are 300,000,000 people in this country. You don't think that some of them feel that way? Lou franklin 13:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Which country is "this country"? This is a worldwide encyclopaedia. --Malthusian (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No original research - your own "survey of one", or pure conjecture. I'm not making the claim, you are - the burden of proof is on you. I also note that you didn't address Rhobite's objection above, which I second. Cleduc 14:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Lou, is it really "homosexuals" you have an issue with? (You've commented that you think everyone but you in this discussion is homosexual: your paranoia is your issue and I don't expect facts get in the way of that.) Wikipedia policy is what you seem to disagree with. Cleduc 14:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Lou

I suspect we've been had, and Lou is little more than your standard, garden-variety troll. Have a look here [3] (which basically document my attempt to incorporate his changes into the article), and here [4], which clearly refers to [5], and, of course, this [6] classic tactic. Note the typically trollish way he switches topics when one appears about to be resolved, how he focuses on non-issues in the article, wants obviously inflammatory text added, etc. I don't know about the rest of y'all, but Lou's "suggestions" are on my ignore list for the moment. -Seth Mahoney 17:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I was planning on submitting a request for arbitration if he got blocked for 3RR a fourth time or started blatantly gaming it (e.g. 3 reverts every 24 hours). Now that Seth is refusing to even try to work with Lou anymore, meaning we have seemingly no chance of getting this edit war to end peacefully, and he's filed a spurious 3RR allegation, I'm inclined to think one should be filed anyway.

As he's causing less actual disruption to the article than when he was flagrantly abusing 3RR, though disruption to the talk page (as I regard endless arguing which does nothing to improve the article) continues, I'm going to continue holding back for the moment, but I'd like to hear the other editors' thoughts. --Malthusian (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Lou is a troll, I just think he is very passionate and opinionated about homosexuality. He's having a lot of trouble working with other users and understanding the relevant Wikipedia policies. Hence his recent revert spree, his disruptive edit about vulgarity, and the incorrect 3RR report about Seth Mahoney. It's disappointing, because his involvement has actually improved this article's coverage of the conservative viewpoint. But he never seems happy with the improvement. I think arbitration may be required if Lou doesn't try to control his behavior, but not right now. Rhobite 20:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong about him being a troll, but there's something about his coy responses, his focus on this one article, and his seemingly feigned innocence/ignorance/lack of any sort of attention span/disrespect for rationality, and with his abuse of wikipedia's structure and rules when it suits him, and then pleading to that same structure when he thinks it will help him that strongly reminds me of the anus.com trolls I had the pleasure of dealing with a while back. Even if I am wrong about his motivations as just trolling, though, it seems he is more concerned with his edits staying in the article exactly as he added them, with knowingly pushing a particular POV, and with his being right (or at least appearing to be right) that leads me to suspect that this isn't so much a vendetta against homosexuality (he hasn't even touched homosexuality, gay rights, or any of the usual targets) as it is something entirely more weird. He is also disrupting at least my attempts to improve this article with his nonsense, which is why I'm stepping out of this whole business. I'll revert what look like bad-faith changes, make my own contributions, but I'm not engaging him on talk pages anymore at all. Hopefully the lack of attention will drive him away. -Seth Mahoney 20:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, I withdrew from the mediation for the same reason. If Lou continues to be argumentative on talk pages, we are probably headed towards arbitration. Rhobite 20:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Lou has offered an excellent irritant here, and as the result an article that was rather poor is now middling-mediocre. I credit Lou with questioning it for the first time. Since then he's made a few good points. He's also flouted most operating principles of WP in his attempt to have his own way on everything: constantly assumed bad faith, ignored clear consensus, gamed the system, used misleading edit comments, made personal attacks, claimed conspiracy, made false accusations, asked questions and ignored the answers, wasted our time, and been generally unpleasant to work around. None of us are paid to put up with this crap. Though he exhibits some of the classic symptoms of trolldom, he also seems genuinely worked up about his positions, so I have a hard time believing he's only here to jerk our chains.

So, I'm 2/3 of the way to where Seth is... I can understand why Seth would not trust him to act in good faith, ever again. I suspect I've been wasting my time answering bogus arguments. I'm all the way there now. Cleduc 03:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I do have a theory that the aforementioned 12-year-old is not just theoretical, that he really exists, and his name is Lou franklin. I honestly hope so, because otherwise there's no explanation for his behaviour. Cleduc 03:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea if that's really his name, but he posts to other adult-ish political websites with the same name. So at least he's consistent. Georgewilliamherbert 06:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The most biased article on Wikipedia

I have no particular problem with homosexuals. I have worked with some very nice gay people. There are a lot of decent compassionate gay guys out there. If you're gay, you're gay. I am indifferent to it. Just so long as you lead a decent life, I wish you well.

But what I can't stand is dishonesty. What is going on here is a disgrace. This article is maintained by about a dozen radical gay people who use Wikipedia to push their agenda. (I understand that "George William Herbert" is not gay, but almost everybody else here openly acknowledges they are gay right on their user page).

You asked about my "motivations". I am trying to raise a red flag here. This site claims to be an "encyclopedia" and most users believe it. So when some kid comes along and reads that "only 38% of the general public think that homosexual behavior is wrong" he has no reason to doubt it. When he reads that "all mainstream Western health and mental health professional organizations have concluded that reparative therapy is ineffective" he believes it. When he hears that "damage from natural disasters correlates with Protestantism" he says, "gee I never knew that".

Well he never knew it because it is a lie. It is not a misunderstanding, a typographical error or a misprint; it is a lie. It was added to the article for the express purpose of "convincing the people in the center to change their opinion" and "changing voters' minds". (Those quotes come directly from the talk page where strategy is devised to craft the article "from the gay rights advocacy point of view").

The editors of this article are deceiving people and it is wrong.

So I stumbled upon the article one day and saw that it was propaganda from start to finish. My corrections were reverted by the gay group, and when I reverted them back I was blocked for violation of the 3rr rule. When I requested mediation, the Chair of the mediation committee (whose user page says he's "gayer than Christmas") assigned a gay mediator. I explained to Wikipedia that they are being used as a PR vehicle by a group of zealots, but apparently they didn't care.

Meanwhile, not only did the propaganda machine continue to roll along, but the word "cocksucker" was added to the article. So now the kid who thinks he's reading an encyclopedia is lied to and then he's sworn at.

Seth, you are not quite as militant as some of the others, but you are no less responsible for what is going on here. I can't make you stop using the word "cocksucker" in front of children, but I can make you wish that you had. [7] And I can remove that word as many times as you can reinsert it. And when you boot me, I know where to find plenty of others who will be more than happy to remove it in my place. This could be a long year.

I find threats of "arbitration" ironic. Arbitration is a wonderful idea. That's why I initiated it last time. There must be somebody in the Wikipedia community that cares that their site is being misused in order to push extremist propaganda. I'm not quite sure why that "somebody" has been so hard to find so far, but let's keep trying. Arbitrate away. Lou franklin 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Lou, I am not gay, as you acknowledge, I am a conservative, which you seem to want to dispute despite having been given plenty of evidence, and your explanations for what you're trying to do here are not credible. Stop giving conservatives a bad name. We are not all homophobic assholes, but that's exactly what you're making us all look like. In pointing out the flaws in the article and provoking change you have done good here with this article, but there are reasonable normal people all across Wikipedia (and Free Republic, and others) who are seeing this behavior and looking at you and going "Who is this nutcase?".

You're going to get Arbitration called on you when you keep this up, and you're going to be blocked indefinitely from any edits to the article pages related to homosexuality, and you're going to entirely deserve that. Because you're an unrepentant far-right extremist bigot, and everyone from mainstream Republicans on left can see that. And I'm going to be dealing with the bad PR repurcussions that you've laid at the feet of all "right thinking people" for years to come.

If you actually cared about this issue, you'd self-limit yourself to not editing the article ever again, and limit yourself to talk page discussions about it. The article is getting fixed. However, the little good you're doing on actual article edits is getting completely lost in the noise of your insane fixation with McCarthy's "cocksuckers" comment and on pedophilia.

I somehow doubt that you will exercise self-restraint, but I can hope.

Georgewilliamherbert 07:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That may be the dumbest post I've ever seen. "If you actually cared about this issue, you'd self-limit yourself to not editing the article ever again". Brilliant. So if I really cared that the article is full of propaganda I would never correct it. Wow. There's some logic for ya.

Most adults are familiar with the concept of doing more harm than good. Given that other people are making neutrality enhancing edits by the bucketload each day now, if you restrained yourself to just making suggestions and comments here on the talk page, you'd be listened to and would have a chance to influence those edits, but wouldn't be getting blocked every other day for edit warring with a dozen people at once. Georgewilliamherbert 03:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

All I can do is what is right. A group of gay rights advocates (and one supposed "conservative") are gaming the system by taking turns reverting my changes. By tag-team reverting my edits they make sure that I get a 3rr violation and none of them do. They get their agenda pushed and I can't stop them unless I organize a group of a dozen or so opposing editors to have a holy war.

If that is the only way to get a voice here I can do that, but I'd rather not. I am not a "far-right extremist bigot" (and I resent the accusation, by the way) but I know where to find some. But I suspect that the article will suffer if we have to go that route.

Do you find it an "insane fixation" that I don't want unsuspecting children to read about "cocksuckers" in what purports to be a neutral encyclopedia article? That is an unusual position for a "conservative" to take. Lou franklin 11:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You've added a threat to use sockpuppetry to the long list of reasons I'm getting really tired of this nonsense filling up the talk page. --Malthusian (21!) (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't go thorough all this to check if this has already been mentioned, but I do want to point out that the concern with verbal cleansing is a purely parochial matter. The British, in their more erudite publications, do not seem to mind. Witness The Economist which pulls no punches in reporting on the foul-mouthed expressions of sundry politicians. (No, I have no examples, I do not collect such things, subscribe to it if you do not believe me.) By the way, I find Lou's implied use of force to pervert the sense and content of this publication to be truly offensive. Just my personal opinion, not an editorial comment of course. Haiduc 11:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to request arbitration

Since Lou franklin has been blocked for 3RR again (four times in two weeks, three of those in one weeks) [8] I'm going to do what I said I'd do and file a request for arbitration this evening (that's in about 5-7 hours, for those in other time zones), unless anyone has any strong objections. I'm leaving it till then mostly because I have Firefox at home and tabbed browsing will make it easier to gather diffs etc. --Malthusian (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How will that help? Haiduc 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently Lou is waiting for his 3RR blocks to expire then continuing his edit warring and disruption of this discussion page. The ArbCom has the authority to impose harsher sanctions to ensure a long-term solution. --Malthusian (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A request for arbitration has been filed. --Malthusian (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Pointers?

I think I'm done with the nationalism section for now. The next step I planned was to edit the section on LGBT civil rights, or whatever its called at the moment, but I thought it would be helpful to flesh out gay pride first, since it is very much lacking in historical detail, and much of the content will likely overlap. Then go back and move some of the info from gay pride and from gay rights into the civil rights section (and then continue from there with conservative reactions and AIDS). Does that sound good to everyone? Anyone have any constructive criticisms for the nationalism section, or any pointers for gay pride and the civil rights section? (Actually, now that I think of it, the LGBT civil rights section should be post-AIDS, and there should be a brief pre-"conservative reactions" section on gay movements more generally, no?) I'm also wondering, per someone's observation above (I think, or maybe elsewhere), if anyone wants to take up the monumental task of doing some research on societal reactions outside of the US, or if maybe the historical section, which is predominately US-based, should be moved to its own, US-specific article? -Seth Mahoney 01:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Statistics issues

I'm wondering about this paragraph:

A separate study shows that, in the United States, the younger generation is more supportive of gay rights than average. For example, a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 18-24 year olds strongly support gay rights. However, polling data also shows a trend among Americans in general toward rejection of homosexual-specific legal expansion of rights, especially homosexual marriage. A poll commissioned by CNN/USA Today Gallup in 2005 asked whether respondents thought same-sex marriages should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages. 68% said no, while 28% said yes [14]. In addition, 11 states rejected homosexual marriage in ballot initiatives during the 2004 elections.

Particularly, how it uses both "homosexual marriage" (a term usually used by conservatives) and "same-sex marriage" (a more neutral term). I think that it would be most appropriate when referencing a given poll to use the same wording the poll does, since wording can affect the poll's outcome. But unfortunately (and this is the second problem) the link is to an article at the Washington Post, which is not only a notoriously conservative paper (if I've got my posts right), but also doesn't seem to adhere to this ideal, since it uses the terms interchangably (and even puts scare quotes around 'marriage' sometimes, but not always). I checked gallup.com, but the only possibly relevant polls require a subscription. Does anyone have access so that we can check the language they use (and maybe doublecheck the results)? -Seth Mahoney 01:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Pollingreport [9] the most recent CNN/USA/Gallup poll has 56%/39% against recognizing gay marriages. The exact wording of the question is "Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" Pollingreport is a good source since it does reproduce the exact wording of polls. Also you may be thinking of the Washington Times, which is owned by the Unification Church. The Washington Post is not known for being conservative, actually it's a frequent target of liberal bias accusations. Rhobite 01:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Muslim / Moslim

An alternate spelling for "Muslim" that is occasionally used is "Moslim"; it is not recommended because it is often pronounced "mawzlem": which sounds like an Arabic word for "oppressor". http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_intr.htm Lou franklin 13:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Gay "marriage"

Take a look at this link that is cited by the article: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm

More Americans oppose gay 'marriage,' poll finds.

Public opposition to "marriages" between homosexuals is at an all-time high

Twenty-eight percent said same-sex "marriages" should be valid.

Each time the work marriage is used relative to same-sex "marriage", it is surrounded with quotes. This is appropriate since most dictionaries define marriage as "the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife".

By this most commonly-used definition of marriage, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron that is liable to cause the Wikipedia reader confusion. If they understand what is being said at all, they may wonder "how can 'the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife' occur between members of the same sex"? Lou franklin 13:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the Washington Times is not a legitimate source of news. It's owned by the far-right Unification Church and I believe it loses millions each year, being supported by church funds. That said, what's your point? This article should reflect the most recent polling data. Since the Washington Times article is old, I used a more recent (and neutral) reference. Rhobite 16:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is exactly what I said: same sex "marriage" is an oxymoron and should be in quotes, for exactly the reasons that I stated.

Your reasons above are, forgive me, ridiculous. Someone reading the article and coming across "same-sex marriage" isn't going to become so confused smoke will spew from their ears. Everyone knows what the term means. The 'same-sex' before 'marriage' already indicates that it is somehow different from what we think of when we think 'marriage', so the scare quotes are unnecessary. -Seth Mahoney 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's OK to misuse the language as long as you don't cause smoke to spew from the readers' ears? You can call me "ridiculous" if you want, but I don't find that argument very compelling.

Does "everyone know what the term means" or are you trying to get everyone to know what the term means? Lou franklin 02:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that if you asked anyone who speaks English what "same-sex marriage" means, they could provide a servicable answer. -Seth Mahoney 03:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting that the Washington Times article was OK as a citation until now. The Times is a major newspaper read by 100,000 people a day. I don't know if it loses money or not, and I don't really see how it would be relevant even if that were true.

The times is nonsense. See the above section on this very page regarding statistics. It doesn't really matter anyway - there's still a majority against same-sex marriage in the more recent (and verifiable) source. -Seth Mahoney 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If the Times is nonsense, why was it ever cited? Did it become nonsense once we noticed that they use quotes around gay "marriage"? Or was it always nonsense and we just didn't realize it before? Lou franklin 03:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that that part was sourced to the times before now. So yes, it was always nonsense. If you doubt my intellectual honesty, have a look here: [10] (an edit where I removed a reference to a clearly liberal source and replaced it with a more neutral one). -Seth Mahoney 03:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia have an article called "Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered"? Don't get me wrong, I oppose violence against gay people, but how does that belong in an encyclopedia? We could really write an article about "violence against" almost anybody, couldn't we?

Could indeed, and perhaps should, if that group is an identifiable group and violence is systematically perpetrated against them. -Seth Mahoney 04:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That article is almost as biased as this one. I enjoyed the line about the "(false) accusation that sodomites pursue little children". No bias there!

Was Harvey Milk "assassinated" or was he killed? He wasn't a President or the Pope, was he? I can't imagine why they used the word "assassinate". I am assuming good-faith though.

Harvey Milk was mayor. I don't know if that qualifies a person for 'assassination' status. -Seth Mahoney 04:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I loved the list of "notable incidents of hate-related assaults". Paints a picture. It's not technically wrong I guess. I suppose that all assaults would be "hate-related". Very crafty.

Psychologists often say otherwise, but you'd know better, I'm sure. -Seth Mahoney 04:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you honestly read these two articles and not see the bias? Lou franklin 04:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the sentence "attitudes toward homosexuality have changed substantially in western societies in the latter part of the 20th century", I removed the word "substantially". We can all agree that attitudes have changed. Whether they have changed "substantially" is up for debate. For that reason, "substantially" was removed. But then it was immediately reinserted. No discussion. No debate. No nothin'. Poof. My edits are gone, replaced with the same biased terminology that was just corrected.

After the sentence "in many Western countries, same-sex relationships are accorded some legal protections", I added "citation needed". How can you make a statement like that with no indication of what types of "legal protections" you mean? My changes? Removed. No discussion. Just gone.

I'm fine with anyone adding legitimate citation needed tags wherever. Its a good idea. -Seth Mahoney 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed "Negative reactions and speech" to "Reactions and speech". It's up to the reader to decide whether these reactions are negative or not. My changes? Removed. No discussion. Poof. Gone.

I think you're confusing "negative in relation to X" with "negative=bad". In this case, they are just negative in relation to homosexuality. -Seth Mahoney 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed "Anti-gay rhetoric" to a less biased "Anti-gay speech". My changes? Removed. No discussion. My changes are history.

Rhetoric is just a specialized form of speech. The word tends to be used negatively, but considering there are classes on rhetoric, it obviously isn't always intended so. -Seth Mahoney 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed "other extreme stereotypes are..." to "other stereotypes are...". It's the readers job to decide if they are extreme of not. My changes? Removed.

My changes were perfectly legitimate. If I add them again, not only will they just be reverted again but I'll get the ol' 3rr hook. You guys are underhanded but at least you are consistent. Lou franklin 23:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems, Lou, with playing the heavy-handed accuser, is that no one knows when you're serious. You spend so much of your time accusing this or that person of whatever and then editing the article just to make a point, and so much of your time reverting others' legitimate edits that you just don't happen to agree with, that we all naturally assume that you're just doing it again. In the future, maybe rather than take the tactics you've been taking, you'll consider how you look based on how you play the game. -Seth Mahoney 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me clear up any confusion then. I am always serious.

Posting the word "cocksucker" for unsuspecting readers is not a terribly civil thing to do. I am very serious about that. I don't say it "just to make a point".

Comparing the civil rights movement of blacks - where they were denied their right to vote and were brutality beaten by the police - to the "gay civil rights movement" - where people who already have their civil rights want more - is very wrong. I am absolutely serious about that. I don't say it "just to make a point".

You can delete my edits until the cows come home, but that doesn't make them any less legitimate. Lou franklin 03:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's silly to argue from dictionaries. Words change their meaning over time, and dictionaries change to reflect these new meanings. If dictionaries were authoritative sources for definitions, words would never change. Even so, the OED notes that the term "marriage" now sometimes refers to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex. I've also learned that "matrimony" is an obsolete method for weighing oxen, where you measure the fore quarter of a heavy ox with the hind quarter of a light ox. You learn something new every day.

Lou, I reincorporated some of your POV word fixes ("substantially", "negative", "rhetoric", "extreme"). These are good changes, of course the larger issue is your continued removal of McCarthy's quote. I wish you'd respect consensus. If you continue, I'm afraid the arbitartion committee may ban you from editing this article. Rhobite 00:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If they are smart they will ban the article. Lou franklin 03:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, the arbitration committee doesn't touch content disputes. They will examine your conduct, however, and it's possible that you may be banned from editing this article or placed on probation for all the 3RR violations and reverts against consensus. Rhobite 16:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for what may have been a heavy-handed revert, but as you are well aware, any reasonable changes you made were padded by several that you knew would be considered very unhelpful indeed ~ Veledan • Talk 00:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Name one. Not only were those changes "helpful", they should have been incorporated long ago.

It's not necessary to apologize, but would you please at least read my changes before starting the "let's get Lou booted for 3rr" game? Just give me a little bit of a running start before you shoot my brains out, would ya? Lou franklin 03:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to follow the debate here, but Lou, if you are so keen on using quotation marks around "marriage" in same-sex contexts, why did you leave unscathed the mention in the article about Nero marying poor Sporus?! Haiduc 03:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

China reference

In the China section, this sentence caught my eye:

In China, historical records tacitly assume bisexuality as the human norm. (Crompton, 2003, p.217)

What's the Crompton reference? I'd like to make into a full ref tag, but don't know the rest of the info. Anyone got any idea what the book title, publisher, etc. are? -Seth Mahoney 03:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my own half-assed work. It is from Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization, Harvard University, 2003 ISBN 067401197X Haiduc 03:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. Given the huge amount of detail you've added to articles, I don't think 'half-assed' is a word I'd associate with your work. -Seth Mahoney 03:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

New intro

oops... just hit save button by accident.. meant to say: "Let's discuss on talk page". :)
I'd like to discuss the opening paragraph. For example, Haiduc, I agree the term "homosexuality" is problematic when applied to non-western and historical cultures, but I think it's OK to start with it and then problematise it. Including the title in the opening para also follows the manual of style (as you noted). ntennis 03:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think it is fair to say that only a few cultures expect same-sex sexual behaviour from everyone, while many condemn it. and thirdly (just out of interest), what is the difference between "often" and "generally"?

By the way, I am talking about these changes. ntennis 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair? Historically, no cultures expected compulsory heterosexuality (am I mistaken). It is all a question of time period. In the present, nolo contendere. I agree to your first comment, about repeating the title and then problematizing. "Often" in the Haiduc dictionary "I oftenh go to the opera". "Generally", like "I generally brush my teeth before I go to bed." Haiduc 03:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that definition. I think you are right that sexual rules within a culture are "generally" different for people of different social categories. In fact, I'd say "almost always". It's just a strong claim without a source, whereas "often" was (I hope) self evident.

As for the other point, the paragraph as it stands contrasts two extremes: compulsory homosexuality and prohibited homosexuality (and remember we are not only talking about males here). My first thought was that the latter is common while the former is rare, but I don't have a source. I'd be happy with a neutrally worded version of "sometimes this, sometimes that", but I think it's important to recognise if one is significantly more common than the other. Do you know of any studies that try and give an overview of the prevalence of societies that prohibit homosexuality? It's very hard to assess beyond the recent past, but would be handy for this page. ntennis 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

More references issues

I don't think the numbering thing is working - it seems like the wiki is numbering all references, web or print, in order of their occurrence, so reference #12, which is, I think, a print reference, isn't listed at the bottom as #12, because there are web pages before it bumping up the numbering. Does anyone know of anyway to fix this or to make numbering actually be automatic for the references section? (And, more importantly, does this paragraph make sense to anyone but me?) -Seth Mahoney 03:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I never figured out how the damn thing worked, which is why I still put references in the text. Haiduc 04:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this may be my fault for not looking at what referencing system the article was already using (altough it does seem a little inconsistent already). I have no problem with text references, but I fixed up the footnote numbering anyway for the 12 already there. Hope you can see how i did it and decide which way you want to go in future. Sorry but gotta run now. Good luck! ntennis 05:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oy, that makes sense. No, I think you're right, the article was just using inline references for websites and footnotes for print sources and that was messing things up. So, I guess that means we should use only footnotes from now on? I'll look out for more reference templates and see if there is something that will work better. -Seth Mahoney 05:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to convert the references to the new system, it is much easier to maintain - handles all the numbering for you. There is really no reason to mess with the old ref templates anymore. See m:Cite/Cite.php. Rhobite 05:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the conversion is done. Woohoo! 33 references! -Seth Mahoney 18:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Refrences

I'll try to fix the refrences to new-format this evening. Here's the brief primer

Replace all of the in-text links with something that looks like this

Old:

[http://www.google.com]

New:

<ref>http://www.google.com</ref> note - ['s removed or :Old :<nowiki>{{ref|pants}}

New

<ref>Pants, a memoire by Art Vandelay</ref>

Replace the refrences section at the bottom with the simple <references/>

So:

Pants are typically worn around the legs and waist.

Refrences

Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"This, however, was not what US politicians had in mind."

I re-added this sentence because I do feel as though we need a more summary kind of closing sentence to that paragraph. But maybe we should put a {{Fact}} tag on it? How does what's in that paragraph differ from what U.S. politicians had in mind? Hbackman 01:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? You "re-added" a sentence that presumes to know what US politicians "had in mind" so that we would have "a more summary kind of closing sentence"? Lou franklin 01:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious. I'm concerned with having a well-written article as well as an article with good content. Having that sentence there is better than having nothing, although the sentence is flawed. It serves as a placeholder. It's not so wholly flawed that it absolutely must be deleted, assuming that it does get revised. And I would appreciate it if you'd be civil, both in your edit summaries and in your comments here. Hbackman 01:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what "assuming good faith" is about, Lou. This has come up before, and I totally forgot about it - its a pretty vague sentence, and should be changed. Especially in the interview with Wherry that's cited in that section, it is pretty clear that he's using anxieties about sexuality to pump up anxieties about Communist infiltration, and vice versa, but it also seems that he's believing his own hype, which is that gay people are somehow easier prey for Communist powers wanting a foothold in the American government. What I wanted to point out with that sentence is that the real, live groups of gay people who may or may not have had connections with Communism weren't really what the US government was looking for - they were looking for the mysterious, hidden Commie-homos - they were the real threat. But I'm still not sure how to say that clearly and concisely, so if anyone has any ideas, or a better way to tie up the section, feel free. -Seth Mahoney 01:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a better way. But my better way was immediately reverted.

It's great that we all agree that the "the sentence is flawed" and that it "should be changed". Having a "placeholder" is swell, but having an impartial article might be fun too. Why was my edit reverted? Lou franklin 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think, for the time being, we can all accept that this will be an article in progress for a while. To me it seems that placeholders are okay for now, and this one is fairly innocuous. Or, put another way, I think there are more important things to concern ourselves with. -Seth Mahoney 03:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Lou franklin 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I did suggest putting ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  on it. If we do that, people who don't think as they read will be made aware of the fact that this statement needs further verification. Lou, do you have a problem with that? Hbackman 05:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sentence rewritten. -Seth Mahoney 18:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Citations

There are several problems with the citations in this article. Let's start with the low-hanging fruit. "The Invention of Heterosexuality" and "The Gilded Age Construction of Modern American Homophobia" are obviously pro-gay and should be removed.

Also, this statement: "in the Bugis cultures of Sulawesi, a female-bodied person who dresses and works in a masculine fashion and marries a woman is seen belonging to a third gender" was cited to http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit66/bissu2.htm . Does anybody see anything in that link that supports that quote? Lou franklin 01:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

We've talked about this difference before, Lou. Look at the sentence The Invention of Heterosexuality is sourced to:

Scholars in recent times have argued that notions of a homosexual and heterosexual identity, as they are currently known in the Western world, only began to emerge in Europe in the mid to late 19th century.

See how it starts out, "scholars in recent times have argued", and then ends with a statement about what they have argued? The source works for that sentence because it supports the claim that these arguments have been made in recent times. To go back to NARTH for a minute, as I've said more times than I care to count, if you were to say, "according to groups like NARTH and the American Family Association, gay men are more likely to be pedophiles" that would be a perfectly acceptable sentence, and NARTH would be a perfectly acceptable source. If the article said, "Notions of a homosexual and heterosexual identity...emerged in the late 19th century" and then used the sources listed, that would be faulty, just like if you said, "gay men are more likely to be pedophiles" and used NARTH as a source it would be faulty. As for your question regarding the Bugis, the entire article is about their gender system and is full of sentences that support that statement, for example: "Bugis acknowledge three sexes (female, male, hermaphrodite), four genders (women, men, calabai, and calalai), and a fifth meta-gender group, the bissu...Calalai are anatomical females who take on many of the roles and functions expected of men." -Seth Mahoney 01:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Lou, Wikipedia doesn't wholesale delete POV material. We revise it. This is why the AfD for this article failed. Hbackman 01:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have had perfectly legitimate text wholesale deleted many times. Lou franklin 02:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wherry section

Lou, if the problem with the Wherry paragraph is that it isn't clear in the final quote that he is talking about gay men then I can more extensively quote the interview - the only reason I didn't was to conserve space. If you think that would improve the article, I'd be happy to do so, though. -Seth Mahoney 01:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a stretch, but I'll give you that one. But what about the other quote? I replaced "Senator Kenneth Wherry attempted to invoke some connection between homosexuality and antinationalism as, for example, when he said" with "Senator Kenneth Wherry said". Why was that removed? His quote is self-explanatory. Again, my perfectly legitimate edit was immediately reverted. Why? Lou franklin 02:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think, stylistically, that the reason the quote is there at all is less clear in your version. But maybe we can come up with a compromise:

My version:

Senator Kenneth Wherry likewise attempted to invoke some connection between homosexuality and antinationalism as, for example, when he said in an interview with Max Lerner that "You can't hardly separate homosexuals from subversives."

Your version:

Senator Kenneth Wherry said "You can't hardly separate homosexuals from subversives."

I'm guessing that your issue is with the assertion that Wherry was attempting to do something he hadn't explicitly addmitted he was attempting to do? If so, I can see if there is more surrounding text that makes it more clear, or we can modify the language surrounding the quote so that it is both clear why it is in the paragraph but doesn't make such an assertion. -Seth Mahoney 02:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Which version involves speculation? By saying "attempted to invoke some connection" that might imply that there was no connection but he was attempting to invoke one. Why not just quote the man and let the reader decide? Lou franklin 03:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice anything in my wording or tone that suggested I'm all about debate here, Lou? I'm asking you how we can work this out. Have you ever considered that what we want might actually be the same thing here? Has it ever occurred to you that I might not be here to push "gay propoganda"? If this is where we're at, forget it. I'll just continue to make edits and ignore your comments. -Seth Mahoney 03:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Saying that "Wherry attempted to invoke some connection" involves speculation and there's nothing wrong with my saying so. But if it's important to you, change it.

But make no mistake. Drawing a connection between the black civil rights movement and the "gay civil rights movement" is pushing gay propaganda. Refusing to remove the word "cocksucker" because you think it evokes sympathy for your cause is pushing gay propaganda. Linking to a study and then misquoting the numbers in the article is pushing gay propaganda. Saying that the medical establishment warned against homosexuality because they wanted "legitimacy and cultural and moral authority" is pushing gay propaganda. Saying "In most developed countries, same-sex relationships are accepted as normal and natural" is pushing gay propaganda. Lou franklin 03:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Lou, there are multiple editors working on this article currently. Few, if any, of us had anything to do with its creation. We're trying to make it better, really, but its a fairly slow process, as it requires research to make a good article. In other words, you can't blame us for all of its content, only for what we've actually added. I didn't put in the bit about the black civil rights movement, though its certainly going to remain, since the connection, right or wrong (and I have my own reservations about its being right), is a part of the cultural landscape. I didn't put in anything about the medical establishment, and I didn't say anything about what most developed countries think, so just get off my back about it. As far as the word 'cocksucker' goes, as much as I hate to revisit this, it has nothing to do with evoking sympathy and everything to do with making history vivid and real. Saying, "McCarthy drew rhetorical connections between homosexuality and Communism" does not mean as much as quoting what McCarthy said. Its not to say, "wow! McCarthy was a bad guy, love us" (which would be stupid), but "this is what part of American politics looked like at the time" (which is true). -Seth Mahoney 06:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the term "LGBT civil rights movement" really a part of the cultural landscape, or is the author trying to make it a part of the cultural landscape?

I can't blame the current editors for all this article's content, but I do blame them for not allowing it to be corrected. When I make legitimate changes and they are immediately reverted, that's not the original author's fault - that's the fault of the group that controls this article today.

The point of adding vulgarity to the article is to say "wow! McCarthy was a bad guy, love us". McCarthy was a skunk in many ways, but the fact that he used the word "cocksucker" once 50 years ago isn't central to the topic of "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality". Lou franklin 13:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Lou. You managed to do it again. Once again (what is this, the third? fourth time?) I took you and your complaints seriously, tried to engage in some productive dialogue, and you turn it into a chance to lob personal attacks, to get on your little soapbox, and to detract from the real work. You refused to engage in any pertinent, productive dialogue, instead turning this into a discussion of your POV. I'm done with you (again). -Seth Mahoney 17:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why so sensitive? What "personal attacks" have I "lobbed"? I was trying to remove language that involves speculation. How is that not productive dialogue? You are the one that brought up gay propaganda. Lou franklin 02:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Seth, I do think that Lou didn't actually do much in this particular line of comments. But Lou, is it any surprise that Seth should be sensitive to what you say and how you say it given previous comments and actions on your part? Hbackman 03:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is very much a surprise. My attempts to make this an objective article are immediately reverted without discussion. I have been subjected to many "personal attacks", some by Seth. I don't see where he has been subjected to any.

This entire article is "a discussion of your POV". It is nothing but an opportunity for a group of gay people to get up on their "little soapbox". For him to get all sanctimonious about it is a bit ridiculous, wouldn't you say?

I have tried very hard to engage in productive dialogue with you, and I have not lobbed personal attacks. You have a lot of nerve to suggest otherwise.

There are still many problems with the article that have been documented above. Encyclopedia articles are not supposed to be controversial. The fact that this one is indicates a problem with the material. Rather than taking criticisms of the article as "personal attacks", why not use them to correct the article? Lou franklin 15:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was going to type out some long thing about how your criticisms have in many ways been used to correct the article. But honestly, and I mean this with respect, I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye here. I can tell you that how you view and interpret yours and others' actions in regard to this article is completely different from how everyone else views and interprets those actions, but that's not going to change your thoughts on the matter. Hbackman 22:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Communists and Nazis

Lou, I noticed you put a {{Fact}} tag on the sentence:

This perceived connection between homosexuality and antinationalism was present in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia as well, and appears in contemporary politics to this day.

The only reason I didn't provide a source is that the articles History of gays in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust and Gay rights in Russia, which are linked to in the sentence, provide more details on the subject, and sources should be (if they're not yet, I'll add them to my list of projects) there. If there's no argument within a couple days, I'll go ahead and remove the {{Fact}} tag. -Seth Mahoney 01:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge tag

Hey all, just came across history of societal attitudes towards homosexuality, which covers a lot of the same stuff that's in here. I figure we should merge anything there that's not here and then make it a redirect to this article. We can split the article off again later, if the history section gets out of control. Any comments? -Seth Mahoney 02:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Doesn't look like there's really much of anything in that other article anyway. Hbackman 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see anything either, so I went ahead and did the redirect. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

More blind reverts

I changed "All cultures have their own values regarding appropriate and inappropriate sexuality; some expect all members to engage in same-sex behaviour, while many others condemn such activity" to "All cultures have their own values regarding appropriate and inappropriate sexuality; a few tolerated members engaging in same-sex behaviour, while most condemn such activity". My changes were reverted without discussion.

Saying that "some [cultures] expect all members to engage in same-sex behaviour" is misrepresenting the facts. It is more accurate to say that "a few tolerated members engaging in same-sex behaviour". Saying "most [cultures] condemn such activity" more accurately portrays the true picture. Why was that change reverted?

I changed "Homosexuality has rapidly become more acceptable in the dominant culture of the West since the 1970s" to "Homosexuality has become more acceptable in the dominant culture of the West since the 1970s". "Rapidly" is a matter of opinion, so the word was removed. My changes were reverted without discussion. Why? Lou franklin 09:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If you had some genuine improvements then you shouldn't have bundled them with the cocksucker and so-called edits that you knew perfectly well would be reverted. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

They were all genuine improvements. It's bad enough that you are reverting legitimate changes, but you should at least take the time to read what you are reverting. Lou franklin 12:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I did read your changes. I'm not going to go through another round of telling you why I think the McCarthy quote should stay, and "so-called" is POV. Rhobite 15:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And, finally, if necessary I can gather sourced quotes regarding societies that expected male homosexual behavior from all their members. Nevermind. Already did - just put the reference on the wrong sentence. The sentence stays as is. -Seth Mahoney 18:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not an online source, so it can't be checked. Would you mind quoting the section of the book that talks about these cultures that expect all members to engage in gay sex. Lou franklin 23:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Gay sex" is a misnomer here - "same-sex sex" or "same-sex sexual activity" or "homosexual activity" is more accurate, since these terms don't have all the cultural contexts and meanings bundled into the word "gay". Second, there is such a thing as a library. Nonetheless:

Although Roheim argued that the Australian data mirrored the Melanesian, homosexual intercourse was prescribed, not just condoned, in some traditional Melanesian initiation rites. (p.28)

A number of Melanesian tribes "share the belief that boys do not become physically mature men as a result of natural processes. Growth and attainment of physiological maturation is contingent on the cultural prcess of initiation, and this entails insemination because it is semen which ensures growth and development". (p.30)

Quoting a 1985 study by Knauft: "All men in the settlement have a strong sense of relaxed friendship and communal camaraderie. Their network of past or present homosexual relations reflects this spirit of diffuse affections, encompassing men who cannot trace specific kinship ties to one another". (p. 32)

Is that sufficient, or are three examples where you expected none not enough? -Seth Mahoney 23:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not even close to "sufficient". I changed "some cultures" to a "few cultures". My change was reverted.

Your request was: "Would you mind quoting the section of the book that talks about these cultures that expect all members to engage in gay sex." How many references from the book do you need to satisfy that request? I can pull out more if you need. Or was your request to explicitely quote the book in the article? -Seth Mahoney 03:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence that disproves that most cultures condemn such activity, there was no reason to revert my changes. Did I ask you to quote the entire book? Please be aware that Wikipedia has a policy regarding Civility Lou franklin 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that Wikipedia has a policy regarding assuming good faith. I apparently didn't (and still don't) understand your request - I thought you were asking for proof that the book backs up the claim that some cultures have customs of compulsory homosexuality. I provided them here, and asked if that was enough, or if you wanted more quotes. Apparently I was wrong, so I asked if what you wanted was a quote from the book to appear in the article. Apparently that isn't what you want either. There was no lack of civility in that last paragraph, only a complete lack of understanding as to what exactly you are requesting. -Seth Mahoney 03:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me try it again. I changed "some cultures" to a "few cultures". My change was reverted.

I changed "many others condemn such activity" to "most condemn such activity". My change was reverted.

The large majority of cultures "condemn such activity". My changes accurately reflected that. The current article does not. My changes should not have been reverted.

My change was perfectly legitimate. If I apply the change again is it going to be immediately reverted again? Will I be reported for 3rr again? Or can we be reasonable and agree to that change? Lou franklin 03:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who reverted your changes, but I'd rather that whole quantification bit was removed, since without detail it is misleading to the point of being wrong. What I'd like to see instead is something along the lines of:

All cultures have their own values regarding appropriate and inappropriate sexuality; some expect all members to engage in same-sex behaviour, while others condemn such activity.

This would remove the quantification and just point out that different rules hold in different cultures, which seems to me on the whole more neutral.

-Seth Mahoney 03:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And you don't see how that obscures the fact that very few cultures "expect all members to engage in same-sex behavior", while the large majority of others "condemn such activity"? You honestly think that language is "more neutral"? Lou franklin 12:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I honestly think such language is more neutral, scare quotes or not. The fact is that the vast majority of cultures have had proscriptions regarding when homosexual conduct is appropriate, and with whom, not whether it is appropriate wholesale. Even supposedly puritanical 19th century Europe had customs allowing different classes widely different modes of sexual expression in different circumstances, which sometimes and for some people included homosexual sex. To say that 19th century Europe "condemned such activity" would be misleading. So I'd rather not have the quantification, instead noting in the intro that there are different rules for different cultures and waiting to go into more detail until later when we're talking about specific cultures. I'm not quite sure why you're so keen on this sort of quantification anyway - if we were going to be entirely neutral about it you'd end up being schooled on the fact that most cultures are very much in the middle of the two extremes you are focusing on here, and a culture occupying either extreme is actually fairly rare. -Seth Mahoney 20:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it be intellectually honest to say "Some Americans are insane serial killers, while other Americans are not"? Or would it be more fair to say that "some Americans are insane serial killers, while most Americans are not"? Lou franklin 03:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice comparison there - between insane serial killers and gay people (which includes me, keep in mind). Moreover, you're ignoring my point entirely. If you want a response from me, you're going to have to actually address what I've said. -Seth Mahoney 03:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have made no comparison between insane serial killers and gay people. What I'm saying is that there are far more Americans who are not insane serial killers, and it's important to say that in the article. Saying "some... while others..." leaves the reader with the impression that the groups are of a similar size. Lou franklin 03:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is not exclusively about America (you will note that the title is not American societal attitudes towards homosexuality), nor, when it is done, will it even primarily be about America. American views on homosexuality get their own section(s), just like other cultures' views, unless, of course, they are being used as an example in order to illustrate something. -Seth Mahoney 03:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that. The point is that "some expect all members to engage in same-sex behaviour, while others condemn some or all aspects of such activity" should be changed to "some expect all members to engage in same-sex behaviour, while most condemn some or all aspects of such activity". Lou franklin 03:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And now we're back to an earlier point: To say that most societies condemn homosexual behavior, without any qualification, is just wrong. -Seth Mahoney 03:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? Lou franklin 03:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already said why, immediately above this. You can scroll up as easily as I can. -Seth Mahoney 03:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing that explains this other than "I'd rather not have the quantification". Please rephrase. Lou franklin 04:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Copied from above: Yes, I honestly think such language is more neutral, scare quotes or not. The fact is that the vast majority of cultures have had proscriptions regarding when homosexual conduct is appropriate, and with whom, not whether it is appropriate wholesale. Even supposedly puritanical 19th century Europe had customs allowing different classes widely different modes of sexual expression in different circumstances, which sometimes and for some people included homosexual sex. To say that 19th century Europe "condemned such activity" would be misleading. So I'd rather not have the quantification, instead noting in the intro that there are different rules for different cultures and waiting to go into more detail until later when we're talking about specific cultures. I'm not quite sure why you're so keen on this sort of quantification anyway - if we were going to be entirely neutral about it you'd end up being schooled on the fact that most cultures are very much in the middle of the two extremes you are focusing on here, and a culture occupying either extreme is actually fairly rare. -Seth Mahoney 04:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You are fillibustering. On what basis do you say that the "vast majority of cultures" did not have "proscriptions" about whether homosexual conduct is appropriate wholesale. The issue is this: I am trying to change "others condemn some or all aspects of such activity" to "most condemn some or all aspects of such activity". Are you disputing that most cultures "condemn some or all aspects" of homosexual behavior? Lou franklin 04:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Until you can refrain from claiming some or another form of bad faith on my part, this conversation is on pause. -Seth Mahoney 04:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I think what it's come down to is that neither of you has cited anything that supports your version to the other's satisfaction. Neither of you is going to convince the other one that your view is right, and you're just going to go round and round and fill up the talk page with the same set of arguments repeated six times over. I suggest we poll the other editors on this page (or maybe even file a RfC?). Would that be acceptable to you both? (Lou, don't assume that you're just going to lose if we do a poll -- I for one am ambivalent but leaning slightly toward your version, maybe with adding a clause about some societies that are basically neutral toward homosexuality if we can find support to cite for that.) Hbackman 04:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -Seth Mahoney 04:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hbackman in calling for a citation for this claim, although I honestly don't know how one can assess the predominance of certain social values across all cultures throughout history! For me the problem is with the phrase "some or most aspects of", which is excess verbiage and confuses the point. What is wrong with "many others condemn such activity"? ntennis 04:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it be intellectually honest to say "Many Americans are insane serial killers, while many other Americans are not"? Wouldn't "some Americans are insane serial killers, while most Americans are not" leave the reader with a more accurate impression?

Hbackman, saying "many" is not a compromise. "Many" is where we started. Please stop reverting legitimate changes. Lou franklin 04:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that is where we started, and I had forgotten that. (Everyone else, take a look at the first post in this section.) Okay. But I still contend that we need a compromise until this can get definitively settled on the talk page. What's between "others" and "most" other than "many?" By the way, is the poll or a RfC okay with you? You didn't reply to that post of mine; probably it got lost in among everything else. ;) Hbackman 04:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How could anybody dispute that most cultures "condemn some or all aspects" of homosexual behavior? Lou franklin 05:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"many others condemn such activity" is a little weasley, but it would be fine with me. Not that it matters, I guess. Anyway, I'm stepping out of this for a while before I join the ranks of insane American serial killers. Good luck to everyone who stays with it. -Seth Mahoney 04:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed "many others condemn such activity" to "most condemn such activity". My change was reverted.

The large majority of cultures "condemn such activity". My changes accurately reflected that. The current article does not. My changes should not have been reverted.

Additionally, I am fully aware that "there is such a thing as a library". Be aware that Wikipedia has a policy regarding Civility. Lou franklin 03:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is, since we started at "others," you changed it to "most" and so "many" IS a compromise. --Rory096 04:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the beginning of the "More blind reverts" section above. It was many days ago when I posted that. To revert my change in the name of compromise is disingenuous at best. Lou franklin 04:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Lou. This debate got so long and involved that it's no surprise that people are having trouble remembering whether the sentence originally read "others" or "many." Hbackman 05:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Just change it back to "most". Lou franklin 05:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Lou, I'm trying really hard to work out a compromise here. Would you please stop making demands like this? (In case it's not clear why I'm frustrated by your comment, I'll try to explain further: to me, what you just wrote basically reads like "Okay, whatever you say -- but doing things my way is the only way I'll accept." It strikes me as disrespectful and suggestive that you are simply not willing to consider compromising on this, which is not a good attitude to bring to Wikipedia if you want things to get done.) Hbackman 05:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with any changes of this sort unless you provide sources. --Rory096 05:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Right before you made your changes, it said "All cultures have their own values regarding appropriate and inappropriate sexuality; some expect all members to engage in same-sex behaviour, while others condemn some or all aspects of such activity." Adding many would be implying more than it did before, and so it WOULD be a compromise. Also, please don't make the changes and end up in an edit war when we're in the middle of a discussion and trying to find a consensus. (looked to me like you edited it again, but then I looked again and you didn't... am I hallucinating?)` --Rory096 05:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Rory, you reverted my changes. [11]

Hbackman did the same thing. Don't tell me not to "make the changes and end up in an edit war when we're in the middle of a discussion and trying to find a consensus". That's what you just did. Lou franklin 05:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you not see that it was crossed out? I thought you made another edit AFTER this whole conversation tonight, I apologize. And anyway, a revert isn't making changes, it's keeping it as it was. --Rory096 05:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think we should just replace the entire thing with dashes until this gets worked out. "while ------------------- condemn some or all aspects..." ;) We do all realize that there have been approximately five pages written about five letters in this article?

Seriously, though. Lou, please give me a yes or no response on the poll/RfC idea, because that's a definitive way of getting this settled. (If no, then what's your solution to working all of this out in a way that is fair and satisfactory to all involved?) If I don't hear an objection from you by the time I go to bed tonight I'm going to put a poll up on this talk page.

Hbackman 05:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, accusations can go in all directions here, so can we all agree to not make them? Thanks. Hbackman 05:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Note to Lou: How to avoid getting reverted

Oh, by the way Lou, regarding your (possibly legitimate) changes being reverted, it may be a good idea, if you absolutely have to engage in edit warring over the McCarthy quote and the "so-called" nonsense and whatever other changes you keep making against consensus, to first make any new changes which you think might be accepted into the final article, and then after that do a second edit where you make all your reverts. That way they're kept separate, and when the inevitable revert happens, if your other changes are accepted, we can just revert to the last version by you. The process goes like so:

1. Make any legitimate changes you can think of.

2. Save the article.

3. Edit the article again, inserting all the changes consensus has deemed illegitimate (like removal of the McCarthy quote, the "so-called" stuff, and whatever else I can't think of at the moment because my immoral, hedonistic, homosexual lifestyle has destroyed my higher reasoning centers).

4. Save the article.

This isn't really an acceptable editing practice, so don't quote me if you're caught violating 3RR, but it doesn't seem like you're going to stop edit warring, so it might be helpful in the meantime. I don't really care to continue this specific line of dialogue, so don't bother replying to it - I just wanted to point out a possible way to get changes in the article that aren't reverted wholesale. -Seth Mahoney 01:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that calling my changes "nonsense" and then saying "I don't really care to continue this specific line of dialogue, so don't bother replying to it" is civil? Did I ever call your lifestyle "immoral" or "hedonistic"? Please familiarize yourself with this Wikipedia policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civility Lou franklin 03:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a pleasant change. My apologies for any offensive content. The point, however, is something you might keep in mind. -Seth Mahoney 03:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That's quite an apology. Lou franklin 12:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, despite my perhaps uncivil tone I was trying to be helpful with the above suggestions. Take it or leave it. (By the way, look at this diff if you're not understanding what I'm getting at: [12] - here you made several changes, some of which were the same old edit warring, and some of which were new. If you made the legit changes first, saved the article, and then did your edit warring, the legit changes would have been more likely to be taken seriously. But, do whatever you want.) -Seth Mahoney 20:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Violence section

I noticed these sentences in the violence section:

During the Holocaust gay people experienced violence (see gays during the Holocaust). Violence against homosexuals (see Gay bashing, for instance) continues to occur today.

Is there any reason that the two articles those sentences link to aren't linked inline? It seems to me that it would be stylistically better this way:

During the Holocaust, gay people experienced violence. Violence against homosexuals, such as gay bashing, continues to occur today.

-Seth Mahoney 00:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That's much better wording. I went ahead and replaced it myself. I'm pretty sure that if anything says 'see X' it should be reworded - I seem to recall reading that one reason to avoid 'see X' is that if Wikipedia is made into a print version, 'see X' doesn't make much sense. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I gave the "Anti-gay speech" section the same treatment, inserting something that looks more like a stub than a soft redirect. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read recommendations elsewhere that "see also" sections should be converted into inline links in the text, and undoubtedly it applies to this sort of thing as well. The only reason I didn't change it myself is that sometime within the past week or two it was changed to the sentences above and I wasn't sure if that was part of some Lou compromise. -Seth Mahoney 01:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs should be made more neutral

The opening paragraph should be made more neutral. It gives an example of a culture that "expects all members to engage in same-sex behaviour" but does not give an example of a culture that "condemns such activity".

Actually, you're wrong. The one example given illustrates a society that both accepts and condemns such activity in different contexts:

For example, among the samurai class of pre-modern Japan, it was recommended for a teenage novice to enter into an erotic relationship with an older warrior, but sexual relations between the two became inappropriate once the boy came of age.

This also illustrates what I'm talking about below: Most societies have very complicated rules regarding sexuality that are highly context-dependent. -Seth Mahoney 20:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph, again, gives only an example of cultures that "interpret certain acts differently" but no example of cultures that share the "Western notion of homosexuality" is given.

There may be some wording tweaks necessary, but be aware that NPOV does not demand that every claim be "balanced" by a counterclaim, nor that every position described be "balanced" by an opposing POV. We don't, for example, need to give (I think) an example of a culture that shares the Western notion of homosexuality (scare quotes or not) because we live in one. We do, on the other hand, need to give an example of one that doesn't because such a way of looking at sexuality is unfamiliar to a lot of potential readers. This isn't pro-gay POV, its just a matter of being aware of who your audience is and using good writing style. You might also keep in mind that part of the reason the article is currently focused the way it is is you - your demands for examples and sources have been largely met, and this has begun to shape the article in a certain way. -Seth Mahoney 20:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The third paragraph is also pro-gay, saying that "homosexuality has become more acceptable" with no indication that the majority of the general public thinks that "homosexual behavior" is morally wrong (that statistic is cited, but much lower in the article). Lou franklin 13:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't pro-gay to say that homosexuality has become more acceptable (this is not the same thing as saying that homosexuality is accepted by everyone, or even by a majority of people). Its a fact. Would you like me to make a graph for the article that documents polls regarding homosexuality and what people think of it? I could do so if you think it would improve the article. -Seth Mahoney 20:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is "same-sex desire has begun to regain its former acceptability" at the top of the article in the 3rd paragraph, while the fact that the majority of the general public thinks that homosexual behavior is morally wrong burried in the middle of the 26th paragraph? Lou franklin 03:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the section on statistics is currently somewhere near the middle-end of the article. Not everything is evidence of a conspiracy. -Seth Mahoney 03:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that "the section on statistics is currently somewhere near the middle-end of the article". My question was "why". Lou franklin 03:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There wasn't a good reason to move it proposed previously, presumably. Do you believe that the whole section should be moved up, or just some of its contents moved into the intro, or...? Georgewilliamherbert 03:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lou on this point — the attitudes of the "majority of the public" should be indicated in the intro, although I want to stress that this does not equate to "the majority of U.S. citizens". I believe a good lead section is a summary of the relevant points of the article (which certainly should include social disapproval), as well as a preparation for the reader for what's to come (clarifying ambiguities or noting conflicting theories). Please see Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Introductory material. On this second point I want to question the changes Haiduc made to the second paragraph. Fair enough, the Bugis are small in number, but they do help to address the western and male bias of the article, unlike the new examples. Furthermore, I think the point I was trying to make (which perhaps could have been clearer?), was that not all societies see sex acts between people with the same genitals as 'homosexual' (=same sex); they may see these people as differrent genders. It was a kind of warning about bringing one's own cultural baggage to interpret other culture's sexualities (a lesson that anthropoligists have painfully learned). The new version is a kind of repeat of the earlier point regarding Japanese Samurais (who, by the way, are no larger in number than the Bugis). Lastly, the phrase "regain its former acceptability" seems to be pushing a POV which I don't think is backed up by the published material, and I wonder whether it even could be given the paucity of data.ntennis 03:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence in question (at least, I think its the sentence in question - I'm admittedly getting a little confused at this point):

Since the 1970s, same-sex desire has begun be seen as more acceptable in the dominant culture of the West, and these sexual values are influencing urban middle class communities worldwide.

I know this doesn't address all of the concerns above, but it should touch on a few. -Seth Mahoney 03:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How was that changed to "include social disapproval"? Why wasn't "the majority of the general public thinks that homosexual behavior is morally wrong" added as discussed? And what do "urban middle class communities" have to do with anything? Lou franklin 02:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Archiving possible?

Can we start archiving this page, or are there too many concerns that are still active? It is getting a bit unwieldy. -Seth Mahoney 03:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the arbitration with Lou closed? If it isn't, I think that everything relating to him needs to stay on the talk page for now. That would mean that only the first six sections are archivable, and I'm not sure that it's worth only archiving 6 sections. Hbackman 03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the arbitration is still going on, and those first six sections are pretty small. Oh well. -Seth Mahoney 03:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Okay, Seth agreed to this idea, and Lou didn't give me a yes or no response either way after a few requests, so I'm starting a poll to try to get a community consensus on the debate covered under the "More blind reverts" section of this page.

The issue is with the following sentence from the introductory paragraph:

All cultures have their own values regarding appropriate and inappropriate sexuality; some expect all members to engage in same-sex behaviour, while ?????? condemn such activity.

The question for this poll is what those question marks should be replaced by:

a)"others"
b)"many others"
c)"most"

Please give your votes in a similar format to an AfD:

* '''vote''' reasons (optional) ~~~~.

PLEASE KEEP YOUR REASONS/RESPONSES CONCISE! In order to keep this poll readable, please try to avoid getting into the kind of lengthy, circular discussion that's taking up most of the space in "More blind reverts." I'm not saying that all discussion in this poll is bad, but try to keep it from taking over the section. Thanks.

I will try to summarize the two main viewpoints/arguments relating to this issue from "More blind reverts" when I get a chance.

Hbackman 05:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Votes

• Many others. It seems like a perfectly good compromise to me. --Rory096 06:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm OK with any of a, b, and c, but note that a and b are self-evident from examples given on the page, but c is a stronger claim: that more cultures condemn homosexuality than do not. If a source is given then c would be the most informative, but it would need to be much more specific - what time period? and what constitutes a culture anyway and how are they counted? (e.g. one person could be a member of youth culture, gay culture, islamic culture, and indonesian culture) ntennis 06:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Others Since this article covers the past as well as the present, and since compulsory exclusive heterosexuality is a modern invention, and since in the past the rule was you can love who you love as long as you get married and have kids and do not break whatever other rules there were, there is no way you can ever show that there was even a smidgen of equality between the two, let alone a preponderance of heterosexualism. The whole apparatus is clearly tilted towards casual bisexuality. Haiduc 12:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Others per Haiduc. With the vast number of cultures that have existed throughtout history, any number which attempts to judge the size of a specific proportion is meaningless. 'Most' is weasel wording. 'Many others' is a compromise between proper, encyclopaedic wording and weasel wording, and no more necessary than the weasel wording itself. Though bear in mind that Polls are evil. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I feel okay bending the rules in this case -- I think it's really the only way that the dispute is going to be resolved. But if you've got any other suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them. Hbackman 03:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• d) None of the above I think even "Some...Others" is borderline Weasely. I think we should stick to specific example rather than make general statements. I.E., This particular culture had these practices/laws. This other particular one has these very different ones. --Chesaguy 00:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Bias in the introduction

The thesis is "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality vary greatly in different cultures". Part of that variation is that "many others condemn such activity". But that was not being discussed in the introduction. In an effort to mitigate the bias of this article, I added these examples:

Approximately 1,000 people were put to death during the Middle Ages for homosexual behavior. Penalties included flogging, dismemberment, castration, hanging by the membrum virile, burning at the stake or other means of execution.

Both Byzantine and Roman civil law treated homosexuality as a crime to be punished by torture, castration, or even the death penalty.

However same-sex intercourse officially carries the death penalty in seven Islamic nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, Somalia, Somaliland, and Yemen.

All of these were reverted. Why? Lou franklin 13:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is not intro material. I certainly would have no objection to having it placed farther down in the article, and properly contextualized. For example, it would have to be mentioned that the abuses of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance came as a response to the ravages of the Black Plague, which incited the clerics to urge greater morality in the populace so as to avert divine vengeance, an obvious example of superstition, blaming a disease caused by bacteria on the displeasure of the god(s). Haiduc 13:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is "not intro material", why is this "intro material"?

For example, among the samurai class of pre-modern Japan, it was recommended for a teenage novice to enter into an erotic relationship with an older warrior, but sexual relations between the two became inappropriate once the boy came of age.

For example, the Greco-Roman world, as well as its contemporaries to the north, like the Germanic tribes, to the west, like the Celts and to the East, like the Persians, normalized male same-sex desire, and often also the concurrent sexuality.

Those statements are already a part of the intro. Are you saying that it's OK to talk about how "many other cultures condemn such activity" (part of the thesis), as long as it's not in the introduction and as long as it is in the context of homosexuals being unfairly blamed? Lou franklin 13:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Those are general truths valid for great areas and long spans of time. The material you introduced was highly idiosyncratic and of an extremist nature. Typically intros are reserved for generalities, the specifics can come later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haiduc (talk • contribs)

Do you honestly think that an example from the "samurai class of pre-modern Japan" isn't specific and "highly idiosyncratic"? Lou franklin 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Lou, your examples are used for a different purpose than the examples that you cite from the text. Your examples are to show that homosexuality has been condemned by cultures, a statement which is straightforwardly understandable and believable without examples. The same goes for saying that homosexuality has been accepted or tolerated by other cultures, which is why we don't have examples to support that statement either.

Of course you do!

among the samurai class of pre-modern Japan, it was recommended for a teenage novice to enter into an erotic relationship with an older warrior

For example, the Greco-Roman world, as well as its contemporaries to the north, like the Germanic tribes, to the west, like the Celts and to the East, like the Persians, normalized male same-sex desire Lou franklin 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the rest of my argument? That is not the purpose of those statements. Hbackman 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I read your argument. If "a sentence's meaning and implications aren't straightforward" then rewrite it. Don't fill the introduction with all examples of pro-gay cultures without any balance. Lou franklin 02:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The sentences that you cite, on the other hand, are there not to serve as examples of homosexuality as acceptable but to clarify the meanings and implications of sentences that would probably be unclear without examples. The Japanese example follows the sentence, "Different sets of prescriptions and proscriptions are generally given to individuals according to their gender, age, social status and/or class." It shows the different kinds of "rules" regarding same-sex erotic/sexual behavior that might apply to people of different ages, as a way of allowing readers to better understand that previous sentence.

The topic sentence of the paragraph in which the second sentence that you cite occurs is "Few, if any, premodern cultures have shared modern Western notions of either heterosexuality or homosexuality, with most interpreting acts, relationships, or individuals differently." The example of the Greco-Roman world is there, again, because that topic sentence's meaning and implications aren't necessarily straightforward, and this example helps readers to understand the sentence better. Again, it isn't trying to be an example of where/when homosexuality was considered acceptable; it's serving as an example of how different cultures interpret acts that we would simply term "homosexual" in different ways.

Hbackman 00:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Greco-Roman (etc) examples do actually illustrate that point, to be honest (as I said above). They are just giving examples of societies that "normalized" male homosexuality. I would prefer the original Bugis example, or another that makes the point that what is homosexual to one culture may be "heterosexual" to another (or even not "sexual" at all). ntennis 00:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What was the original Bugis example? Hbackman 02:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Few, if any, premodern cultures have shared modern Western notions of homosexuality, with most interpreting certain acts, relationships, or individuals differently. For example, in the Bugis cultures of Sulawesi, a female-bodied person who dresses and works in a masculine fashion and marries a woman is seen belonging to a third gender; to the Bugis, their relationship is not homosexual (see homosexuality and transgender)." See also my comment just above the heading "archiving possible". ntennis 03:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Can't say I think it's better than what's there now, really, but I don't think it's worse either. *shrugs* Hbackman 03:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how the Greco-Roman examples "serve as an example of how different cultures interpret acts that we would simply term "homosexual" in different ways"? If all they are doing is saying that some societies had institutionalised homosexuality, that point has already been made. ntennis 04:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you know what, on reading it again I think I misread it the first time around. We'd need a "whereas" and some examples of how other societies treated homosexuality differently at the end of that example sentence for it to do the work that I said it was doing. Hbackman 04:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Although Greek society did view acts that we would perceive as homosexuality in a very different way. They did not pay attention to what combination of sexes/genders was involved in intercourse but rather whether you were penetrating or being penetrated. Hbackman 04:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

They did not interpret the acts as sick, perverted, unholy, unmanly, or unusual. Haiduc 04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Nor illegal nor homosexual. Haiduc 04:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok I really think that point (about how homosexuality is valued differently in different cultures) has been made earlier in the lead section. Don't you think it's worth noting in the lead section that what might look homosexual to a person from one culture may not be homosexual at all to someone from another culture? Because that point has been lost. ntennis 04:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it another way; or rather, I'll let Leila Rupp from Toward a Global History of Same-Sex Sexuality explain:

"...looking at manifestations of what we call “same-sex sexuality” in different times and places both to explore global patterns and to consider how those patterns make the two parts of the term “same-sex sexuality” problematic. That is, sometimes such manifestations cannot really be considered “same-sex,” and sometimes they should not really be labeled “sexuality.” These complications suggest that even the attempt to avoid assumptions about the meanings of desires, acts, and relationships by using a term such as “same-sex sexuality” may inadvertently lump together phenomena that are quite different. This is the difficulty of thinking about a global history of same-sex sexuality." ntennis 04:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Anything, as long as I can get you to not use "homosexuality" for anything before the late 1800's and in Europe. How about something a bit more well known than the Bugis? Most of the Native American tribes Walter Williams discusses in his The Spirit and the Flesh" have the same views. Haiduc 04:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here is what I understand from the anthropological/sociological literature about the social organisation of sexuality: Man and woman are social classes, as (for example) adult samurai and apprentice samurai are social classes. There are norms in each culture that govern the kind of relationships members of such a class should have with each other, and with other classes, as well as what kind of sex they should or shouldn't have, how it should (or shouldn't) be talked about, how it should be valued/reviled, etc.

The majority of cultures have structured sexual relations between different classes; I think Haiduc would agree that the modern western "egalitarian" notion of homosexuality is probably the exception rather than the rule. It has been argued (although it is controversial) that in Ancient Greece, adult male sexual penetration of inferior social classes (women, boys, foreigners, slaves) was acceptable, while two adult males screwing each other was considered deviant. In Greek terms, the group of acceptable sexual partnerships can be considered to be between different "genders". For societies like these, terms like "homosexual" or "same-sex" can be misleading.

So I think it's important to give readers a kind of warning in the lead section to be cautious about ascribing "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" to other cultures. One way to illustrate this is with an example of a gender-structured sexual relationship between people who may share the same genitals, such as within the Bugis culture (or any of a number of other examples).

The other point that I think needs to be made is that some scholars have disputed whether, for example, a boy-inseminating ritual in New Guinea, or a Baruya Melanesian custom in which lactating mothers offer a breast to girls who are not their own daughters, can be properly considered sexual. To them, they are nourishing the children and helping them become adults. The literature abounds with examples like these.

I will have a go at re-writing the paragraph to make this point clearer if no-one objects. ntennis 05:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for detailing the introduction issue better than I've been able to. I think the examples that are there do serve a useful informational purpose, so if you've got an idea how to make their purpose more clear without compromising that, by all means go for it! -Seth Mahoney 17:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

{{limitedgeographicscope}} removed

This tag belongs on the article page, as can be seen from its link to the talk page. But on the other hand I think this article represents a far more geoegraphic view than it did when the tag was put in place. What Americentrism there is is probably 'natural' due to the fact that most research of this kind is done in the United States, as well as its more prevalent media and more vocal religious community (compared to Europe). I think it should just be removed, and have boldly done so. If someone wants to replace it, please put it on the article page rather than the talk page. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

POV tag?

Lou intends to add a {{POV}} tag to the article when his 48 hour block for his 5th 3RR violation expires [13]. I believe it isn't deserved unless someone other than Lou is disputing the neutrality, as Lou's behaviour hasn't given me any confidence that he will accept a genuinely neutral version of the article. Are there any other editors here who believe a 'neutrality disputed' tag is warranted? Otherwise my instinct is to revert the tag if he adds it. I may be wrong but I don't believe a single problematic editor qualifies as an actual 'dispute' when there is a clear consensus. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 09:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're technically right about what qualifies as a dispute, but I wouldn't bother reverting a POV tag since the article is currently being worked on, and some sort of notice that it isn't currently what should be expected from a wikipedia article is really okay. Let Lou have his little victory. -Seth Mahoney 19:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

From looking at this page, it is a fair statement that there is a dispute on the neutrality of this article. Until the dispute is resolved the tag should be there. I have added it (btw, marking the change "minor" was a mistake in the click of the mouse). Cleduc 21:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 22:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That misses the point that it is not the fact that an article is disputed but its actual bias that merits an NPOV tag. If it was not that way then every minority editor could slap a POV tag at will on anything. Not onloy that, but Cleduc has not even said what it is about the article that he is in disagreement with. Haiduc 23:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The tag says "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I understand that Wikipedia:NPOV dispute says that it is the opinion of the person who puts the POV tag. However, with the POV tag I acknowledged a running dispute on neutrality which has consumed this article for the past month. Once that dispute is over (hopefully arbitration will end soon) then we should remove the tag. In the meantime, there is an edit war going on, and fairly regularly the article has content introduced which I certainly consider to be POV. This happens on average 4x per day every other day. If what's happening with this article isn't a neutrality dispute, then I don't know what one is. If someone else disagrees and chooses to pull off the POV tag, go ahead - I won't reapply it. I am not in disagreement with anything in the article at this instant. No reason to hide the fact there's a conflict, though. Cleduc 01:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a "disputed" tag that doesn't invoke NPOV accusations? -Seth Mahoney 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, can we try to work out what we're actually disagreeing on here? Because I'm somewhat confused now. If we're still concerned about whether the article is Americentric, we can put {{Globalise}} back, if it's the factual accuracy we're concerned about, we can use {{disputed}}. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 23:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am still a little concerned about the article's Americacentricness, at least as far as recent history goes. I don't think there is a problem with factual accuracy, and I don't think there is an NPOV problem. But Lou does, and I don't really think its worth it to take 16 pages arguing with him about it at this point, since the article is a work in progress and will obviously have some kind of problem(s) for the time being, and since researching and writing are far more important tasks that have been given less importance than dealing with Lou's, um, requests for attention. -Seth Mahoney 23:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is badly biased. The introduction, for example, is pro-gay and many attempts to add balancing examples have been rejected.

It is acknoledged right in the article that "the term 'LGBT civil rights movement' is a misnomer and an attempt to piggyback on the civil rights movement". Yet the article continues to use the term! Rather than removing the term (which is really the right thing to do), a compromise of changing "the LGBT civil rights movement" to "the so-called 'LGBT civil rights movement'" was suggested, but it was flatly and repeatedly rejected.

The term "homosexual marriage" should be in quotes. The article used to cite a major US newspaper that includes quotes around "gay marriage". When that was brought to the editors' attention, not only did they not agree to add the quotes, they removed the citation!

Attempts to fix the article have been futile. Many legimate changes have been blindly reverted. User blocks have been issued for those who dare to try to correct the problem. Lou franklin 13:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Note to readers: each of the issues mentioned above (introduction, civil rights, marriage) has been discussed on this talk page, resulting in consensus by all except the above editor (Lou franklin). Claims of misconduct by the above editor are currently being discussed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin. Cleduc 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, it should be said that claims of misconduct by everyone involved are currently being discussed in the arbitration case. It's just that the presentation of evidence is rather one-sided at the moment. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 14:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You should create another "note to the readers" that explains why balancing examples were removed from the introduction. You could explain how these examples were "highly idiosyncratic" but examples from the "samurai class of pre-modern Japan" are conventional. Lou franklin 03:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)