Talk:Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why

Notability
Randkitty, if you seriously believe this book is not notable, nominate the article for deletion. But please don't waste my time by placing "notability disputed" tags on the article. It's disruptive, tendentious, incompetent behavior. I looked at WP:NBOOK, and it's obvious that you don't even properly understand the guideline you invoked. Nowhere does it suggest that the notability of a book depends on whether sources are actually used in an article: it is only necessary that the sources exist. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The notability tag says that the article doesn't establish notability. It doesn't. You have 1 book review (with an incorrect citation, I'll correct it in a moment) and 1 mention in a newsletter. That just isn't enough. Saying loudly that there are plenty of sources and there is no doubt of notability doesn't do it either. Sources do. I've added sufficient sources to Human Sexuality (book) to show notability. I don't have time to do that here. Putting a notability tag does not mean that the article is going to be deleted (books are not eligible for CSD, otherwise this would perhaps be an A7). All the tag does is alert editors that this stub needs work. Calling this "disruptive, tendentious, incompetent" only serves to inflame things and if you don't care about WP:NPA, perhaps WP:CIVIL appeals more? It certainly is my experience that talking reasonably with people brings more results (and in the end is more satisfying for myself) than getting upset. After all, we all have the same goal of building a quality encyclopedia. --Randykitty (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since your comments do not address what WP:NBOOK actually says, they are irrelevant. The wording of tags obviously does not take precedence over the actual content of guidelines. Ergo, your edits in regarding to the notability issue are incompetent, as I said. Why not just admit that you made a mistake? As for the tag being there to "alert editors that this stub needs work", that simply shows its pointlessness. It is obvious to anyone not of sub-normal intelligence that the article needs work. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You were right about the page being 53. Weird, I have no access to the journal so I checked in EBSCOHost, which usually is reliable. But clicking on the DOI, I get to the Elsevier website which indeed says page 53. Anyway, I have noticed that you insist on placing "talkheader" templates even on empty talk pages, despite the explicit instructions to the contrary of WP:TALK and the template documentation. Perhaps it would be good if you actually had a look at the template and read what it says. Might make your life on WP easier. --Randykitty (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If, for whatever reason, you have decided not to restore the notability tag, then thank you. I'm sure that you will find better uses for your time on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive tagging
Randkitty recently placed a tag reading, "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" on this page. The tag was blatantly inappropriate. Every statement that appears in the article is properly referenced. No additional citations are necessary to verify anything. If Randykitty persists in this disruptive behavior, I suggest that he or she be sanctioned for it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As explained ad nauseam, the article does not establish notability of the book. Since you strenuously object to a notability tag, I decided to place a refimprove tag, because that is all that is needed: a few good references and the deal is done. Drawing attention of interested editors to potential problems in an article is absolutely normal, that's what those tags are for. But if you still think my behavior is disruptive, please feel free to file a report at WP:ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Each tag serves a specific purpose. The tag you added is for articles that contain unreferenced information. This article does not contain unreferenced information. You have no excuse, of any kind, for adding it. Persist in such nonsense, and I will persist in pointing out that your behavior is a form of disruption. ANI is not an appropriate forum for doing this, but there are others. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then go wherever you think is appropriate. I'm done talking with you, since you are apparently unable to communicate in a reasonable and civil manner. --Randykitty (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What I think is appropriate is to remove all tags from this article. You might have a case that some of them are acceptable in terms of the letter of Wikipedia guidelines, but you seem to have forgotten that guidelines are supposed to be used with common sense. It's not really showing common sense to question the notability of a book by a famous author about a subject that many people are interested in. And no, you don't get to add a tag to an article that states something factually wrong. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
Beauvy has added the following material: 'Consistent with Blum's observations that little work has been done in over a decade, critics of LeVay's earlier research methods have questioned the accuracy and appropriateness of his measurements on which his thesis relies; for example, the structures that he relies on in his research are difficult to see in tissue slices, and that he measured in volume rather than cell count. Nancy Ordover wrote in her 2003 book American Eugenics that the research leading to Levay's book has been criticized for "small sample size and for compiling inadequate sexual histories'.

That material is based on two sources, the most recent of which is the book by Nancy Ordover, published a decade ago. Neither of these sources even mentions Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why, the book this article is about. This criticism of old research, done by LeVay more than twenty years ago, shows exactly nothing about this recent book. It perhaps does show something about the quality of LeVay's research, but this simply isn't an article about LeVay's research, a distinction Beauvy doesn't seem to grasp. The material does not belong here and should be removed. WP:COATRACK is a good essay that explains what is wrong with material of this kind. The sentence Beauvy added about this old criticism of LeVay being "Consistent with Blum's observations that little work has been done in over a decade" is original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that a source from 1991 can be legitimate criticism of a book published in 2011. If this cannot be explained reasonably here with a full demonstration as to how it relates specifically to this article it should be excluded.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That was simply coatrack material. Thank you for removing it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It might be appropriate for inclusion in the article about LeVay but not in this article. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I was able to find a direct review of LeVay's book published in the 2012 Volume 4 Journal of Human Sexuality (notable Journal in the research area). This review does critique the oversimplification of LeVay's research interpretation, which are fairly well-founded in the literature over the years. However as a direct review of the book, it is highly relevant to this page, as is the other review already cited. The entire reference appears in full, however there is a small error in inline formatting and in good faith, I hope someone here will help me with that? Since much of this WP entry relies on "online" citations, finalizing the journal article reference will provide a well-rounded WP entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauvy (talk • contribs) 05:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark, I have to say it is notable you immediately removed the categories because they did not appear neutral before. A category called "scholarly reception" is non-neutral because it indicates "receptivity". Anyhow, MANY other pages are laid out with clear section devoted to "praise" then "criticism." That is why I added the category scholarly critique. However, I am glad to see you are now promoting neutrality. It might also be wise for the presentation of "scholarly reception" to appear in order of journal impact factor. Just a suggestion for the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauvy (talk • contribs) 05:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In general criticism should be spread through out the article where appropriate and works well when there is an "reception" section. I have removed "scholarly" as being to specific as there is likely to be other types of reception from non scholarly sources (book reviews etc). I just couldn't fix the reference as I don't know what it referes to. Is there a link just so I can format it?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I obtained access to the article pdf through work, which includes on it the citation. This also appears to be the complete citation: http://www.scribd.com/doc/174191760/Journal-of-Human-Sexuality-Vol-IV


 * For the record, it needs to be stated that the Journal of Human Sexuality is a publication of NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a group that (as most of us know) is dedicated to trying to convert gay men and lesbians to heterosexuality through conversion therapy. I won't speculate on why Beauvy has decided to add a NARTH source to the article. Nor am I going to remove it. It is absolutely essential, however, that the article note that Whitehead's review was published in a NARTH periodical, lest someone mistakenly conclude that it comes from some sort of mainstream, respectable source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Whitehead/NARTH source per WP:FRINGE. NARTH's methods and research have been condemned by both mainstream sexology researchers and by groups like the APA, and their journal is not peer reviewed. Presenting material from NARTH-affiliated sources alongside critiques from more legitimate/mainstream sources like the New Scientist is to suggest a parity between the two. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good call (and well spotted by FKC). I'd also note that even if mention of this "journal" were to remain in the article (and it shouldn't), the wording was unacceptable because it said "Whitehead criticized [the book] for its over-simplicity" [sic], thus suggesting in Wikipedia's voice that an allegation about a book is actually true. Rivertorch (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you and I agree as well. I did not attempt to review the source, but only assisted the editor to place it within our procedures for referencing. For the editor, our own article, Conversion therapy seems fairly well referenced to make the above claim of fringe:


 * Per Fringe theories:"When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views."


 * Also per WP:VALID: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world."--Mark Miller (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You can call it a fringe journal but it is carried by my university of tens of thousands of people. I have no interest but to present statistical facts - the facts are noted that the genetic findings in much of LeVay's work, are unfortunately simply non notable. Even LeVay has tempered his own discussion of the 1991 Science article that received so much criticism - since then it is shown that brain regions do change sized based on sociologic conditions. I think to be fair, both criticisms (BOOK REVIEWS) and reception, have to be considered. Removal of a book review that has been published in two places is simply biased. I see 3 men looking for a way to skew the findings but criticism of Levay and other's brain research clearly indicates (see my discussion below) that the book review is relevant. If you present this a "closed case" of genetics of homosexuality it actually does not advance any agenda. It reverts it. This is not case closed, more research is needed, Levay presents oversimplifications. How many MORE articles do I have to present to you to prove that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauvy (talk • contribs) 22:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ;
 * Your semi-coherent comment shows a total misunderstanding of the science. LeVay's findings about INAH3 never had anything to do with genetics - they were based on brain anatomy. You are confused in calling them "non notable." Their being "notable" or not is not an issue here; notability concerns which subjects may have articles created about them. It's equally irrelevant which editors are men and which are not; in making an issue of that, you are dangerously close to making personal attacks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation format
I am unfamiliar with the format style being used. Short citations still must contain all the info to be verified. The "Whitehead" reference is formatted to how WP:CITESHORT specifies. Why are the other citations missing information...or am I missing something?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As an example of proper short citation formatting see Charles I of England (an article I am reviewing for GA status).--Mark Miller (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Propose changing citation style
I recommend that we switch the citations styles on the article to the basic format with full citations. Since it appears the citations are not properly formatted I think switching would be a net plus to the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Do what you like with the citation style, within reason. I don't greatly care. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is...without page numbers these are not to be used as inline citations. These would be "General references":"A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section, and are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor." So, the references with no page numbers should not be used as inline citations.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Journal citation and book review removal
Hello, I noticed my citation was removed. I am reverting as this must be a mistake from reformatting. Mark Miller and I discussed this already above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauvy (talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

you cannot remove a BOOK REVIEW from a peer reviewed high impact journal because you decide it is Fringe. My large university carries this journal, which means it is not fringe. The review is supported by a hundred references regarding the underlying neuroscience. Reverting back. Your issue here is a non-neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauvy (talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with "therapy" of homosexuality. This is in no way my interest. But the cited Review of this book is legitimate in the sense that it sites a laundry list of research from 1990s-2000s that was misinterpreted due to small sample sizes, statistical artifact/spurious finding, making more of causality than could be concluded from the statistical results, etc. One can read the citation list and find researchers from various journals who agree.

While I personally do believe that a proportion of sexual behavior is genetically dictated, this book does not cut it in demonstrating this, and researchers have noted that the research claiming to show this has been shoddy throughout the 2000s. More work is needed, and it is fine to cite a book review stating that more work is needed, the book is too thin. The book review DOES also offer some positive critiques, so if you download it, you can add some. However, we have 2 solid references of positive reception, so the other side should also be presented.

What if I told you The New England Journal of Medicine peer review operates under a crony system? To a large degree it does, yet no one would devalue an article from NEJM...the world is full of bias but we cannot call bias at will/at random.


 * Got any evidence for NARTH's home-made journal being "peer reviewed" or indeed "high impact"? Because I can't find any evidence that it is. Your views on LaVey's work or indeed your views on the etiology of sexual orientation is irrelevant to the discussion of whether an article in NARTH's pretend journal, the Journal of Human Sexuality, is indeed a reliable source. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I put my views bc they were questioned by another user in your conversation with him. As you know. He is implying i am biased.

Tom, book reviews are not peer reviewed. Hate to tell you - in any journal. book reviews appear on NYtimes. Def not peer reviewed. THe citation should stay, as a book review. To temper its effect, you may add non peer reviewed book review, but that is just to acquiesce. It is implicit that a "review" is not peer reviewed. THe review is well sourced, well written, and whitehead is well-published even outside of your "NARTH" journal which i knew nothing or cared nothing about until today. I also resent above implications of agenda. It is clearly quite the opposite here.


 * So, do you have evidence for NARTH's Journal of Human Sexuality being peer reviewed or high impact? I've put up a thread on fringe theories noticeboard asking for further views on the reliablity of the Journal of Human Sexuality. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You should read the article. It is also published on PRofessor Whitehead's site, if you should choose not to reference the Journal. Additionally you should remove non notable philosopher Ruse. There would be no reason to include a random persons's review. YOu should explain why he is notable.


 * Michael Ruse is not "not notable." He has his own article precisely because he is notable. He is a well-known philosopher of science. Your removal of his comments from the article unfortunately just looks like deliberate disruption - an expression of annoyance because something that you added got removed. That evaluation of your motives could be wrong, but I'm afraid that's how it looks. Your behavior at this article is bizarre. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem curiously unable to answer the question. Do you have any evidence for NARTH's Journal of Human Sexuality being either peer reviewed or high impact. This is key to determining whether it is a reliable source. As for Michael Ruse, that is a review in a popular outlet of the book, not a refutation of the scientific credibility of the work. The reliability of the source is dependent on what it is necessary that the source show. If you want to present a case for the non-inclusion of Ruse's review, make a new section on the talk page and do so. But complaining about Ruse while not responding to questions about the reliability of the Whitehead source just seems like you are evading the question. You've said the Journal of Human Sexuality is both peer reviewed and high impact. For the third time, got any evidence for that? —Tom Morris (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no possible valid reason for removing Ruse's review. Beauvy is simply engaged in deliberate disruption here. Let's not be fools and refuse to recognize it for what it is - WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm more than aware of that. I was hoping Socratic questioning might highlight the emptiness of the argument. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Not allowing objective viewpoints
Before deleting the citation, please see article pdf, including ~ 50 relevant citations. This is the same article appearing in the Journal, that is peer-reviewed (stated on their website) and which my university carries.

I only ask you to read the pdf and stop advancing a single agenda when a body of science is in question. I truly Don't care about social implications, I care about the science. Congrats if you were born gay, I don't really care, the book review is a review of "SCIENCE," which has been claimed shoddy by several sources. Remember science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauvy (talk • contribs) 22:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the article, including the author citing his own research, and other unpublished and non-peer-reviewed research. Are you aware that "NARTH's leaders disagree with the global scientific consensus, the holding of the world's major mental health organizations, and scientific research into the topic which show that homosexuality is not a disorder?" This is what we mean by fringe. I doubt very much that the Journal of Human Sexuality article meets our WP:RS requirements for use as a criticism of Levay's book, in as much as it's WP:FRINGE and not independent of the subject. - MrX 23:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A check of OCLC WorldCat shows this journal in the libraries of a grand total of 4 education institutions in the United States: George Fox University, Saint John Vianney Theological Seminary, Asbury Theological Seminary, and Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary. This is not the profile of a mainstream source. Agricolae (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Beauvy, regardless of your view that Whitehead's review is useful, you shouldn't be re-adding it in the face of so many objections. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

New source
I've found another source that could be used to improve the article. The source is the article "Why Gay and Lesbian? A New Proposal" in the July/August 2013 issue of Skeptical Inquirer. I will try to summarize its contents. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

non proven facts ie opinions must be attributed as opinions/speculations
is editwarring to reinsert content that places in Wikipedia's voice as facts claims that are merely the hypothesis of the author of the book. That is unacceptable - the opinions must be properly attributed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see the section below and be willing to consider what I have to say. You haven't made any serious case that the article is not in accord with WP:NPOV, and it seems to me you are simply misreading it. You've certainly misunderstood my intentions. You can't go on reverting on the basis of such vague complaints. Everything in the "outline" section is presented as LeVay's opinion, nothing more. You are just wrong in what you are claiming. Did you miss the "LeVay suggests" part? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wording of the outline section
TheRedPenofDoom apparently objects to the following text: "LeVay suggests that several "feminizing" genes are at work in the development of male homosexuality. The inheritance of a limited number of such genes might make males more attractive to females, for example by rendering them less aggressive and more emphatic, which would in turn make them more successful in terms of reproduction. Male homosexuality might result from the inheritance of a larger number of feminizing genes." His preferred version is as follows: "LeVay suggests that several "feminizing" genes are at work in the development of male homosexuality. He proposes that the inheritance of a limited number of such genes makes males more attractive to females, for example by rendering them less aggressive and more emphatic, which would result in such men becoming more successful in terms of reproduction. Male homosexuality might result from the inheritance of a larger number of feminizing genes."

I'm simply baffled as to why TheRedPenofDoom would consider his version more neutral. There is almost no significant difference between the two versions. What, for example, is the relevant difference in terms of NPOV between, "He proposes that the inheritance of a limited number of such genes makes males more attractive to females, for example by rendering them less aggressive and more emphatic, which would result in such men becoming more successful in terms of reproduction" and "The inheritance of a limited number of such genes might make males more attractive to females, for example by rendering them less aggressive and more emphatic, which would in turn make them more successful in terms of reproduction." I just can't see one. Maybe Red Pen thinks that the addition of the words "He proposes that" somehow make his version more neutral, but that's not at all the case - it's perfectly clear that everything in the "outline" section is LeVay's opinion, and the "LeVay suggests" part makes that absolutely explicit. Nothing that follows the words "LeVay suggests" can reasonably be understood as Wikipedia presenting LeVay's views as fact. Red Pen is misreading the article if he can't see that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre photos
Pinging and  (really sorry if you are watching this article - hate to ping you since it's annoying to get an email every time). But what do you think of the photos of Freud and Kinsey? The book hardly focuses on them, and when you look at the edit history, good grief the whole thing is FKC. FKC actually left some really cruel comments about this book (and LeVay) on another one of his socks. Sxologist (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear I think this article is one of FKC's better ones. Perhaps a ruse, even. But his weird obsession with putting photos of Freud in every article or book related to homosexuality...? Sxologist (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing Crossroads. In future I won't ping for an edit like that, I just wanted to be sure. Sxologist (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I had removed some material from this article while FKC was still around: I also now removed the pictures. They don't add anything. Crossroads -talk- 01:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't get emails when pinged on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem
This article has been tagged as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) It will likely be deleted after one week unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Major contributions by contributors who have been verified to have violated copyright in multiple articles may be presumptively deleted in accordance with Copyright violations.

Interested contributors are invited to help clarify the copyright status of this material or rewrite the article in original language at the temporary page linked from the article's face. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. --MER-C 10:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See also . MER-C 10:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did work on this article to make it neutral, as I said at that discussion. It's a very mainstream book. Can't you just expunge whatever copyvio there is and restore it? This book really should have an article and this one was fine. Crossroads -talk- 19:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Content written by FKC cannot be trusted from a copyright perspective. They are the primary contributor. The only options are a from-scratch rewrite, stubbing or deletion. MER-C 19:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought there was a way to tell which text was good and which wasn't. Maybe that doesn't apply here. Can we restore it as a stub, and then I (and others who pass by later on) can chip away at expanding it anew? Crossroads -talk- 20:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)