Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 18

Scientific fact sheet
This fact sheet contains a scientific fact sheet with lots of footnotes. Nice to add lots of info from fact sheet. Check out the footnotes, excellent data. Kleinbell (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but Wikipedia relies on reliable sources for its articles. Rivertorch (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you think this is not reliable source? Its sources are scientific and based on pro-gay writers. Kleinbell (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * NARTH is a fringe organization, and there's no doubt that it's not a reliable source. I think you will find wide agreement about that on Wikipedia. Born Gay (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you send me to some actual posts where there is consensus? Wikipedia is pro neutrality. Kleinbell (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Rivertorch and Born Gay, see: Deny recognition Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, I know, but see also WP:AGF. Guideline trumps essay, and it's hard to be sure. Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you send me to some actual posts where there is consensus? Wikipedia is pro neutrality. Tnx. Kleinbell (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * NARTH is a fringe group that advocates the pseudoscience of conversion therapy. We're not obliged to repeat their views in a general article on homosexuality.  See WP:SOURCE for details about why this group's "non-fact sheet" doesn't belong in this article.  Exploding Boy (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is support for scientific capabilities of narth: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/medconsequences.html And if you do not agree, then at least this page should be neutral. Wikipedia is pro-neutrality. An NPOV tag will be right if there is no "neutralizer" Kleinbell (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that NARTH (1000 members, founded in 1992) is a fringe activist group with extremist views on homosexuality which promotes conversion therapy (1, 2, 3, 4) and as such has no place in a Wikipedia article with an exception of article about NARTH itself. Here is the evidence (1, 2) that even it's president Nicolosi is unreliable and unable to prove validity or effectiveness of conversion therapy. There is no article about NARTH on CNN, AP etc. websites in contrast with American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, Royal College of Psychiatrists etc. Thus, covering NARTH's views or materials elsewhere would be in violation of almost all Wikipedia policies and guidelines: (continued in collapsed box)


 * Neutral_point of view ::::::"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Core content policy pages may only be edited to improve the application and explanation of the principles.


 * Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.


 * Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.


 * From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
 * * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.


 * Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.


 * The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Holocaust never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.


 * Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources.


 * Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the neutral point of view policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.


 * Psuedoscientific theories are claimed to be science, however, they lack scientific status by use of an inappropriate methodology or lack of objective evidence. Conversely, scientific consensus is by its very nature the majority viewpoint towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the scientific view as the majority view and the pseudoscientific view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.


 * No original research "No original research" is one of three core content policies. The others are neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.
 * Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material. Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research; see below.


 * In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see the discussion of self-published sources for exceptions.


 * Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.


 * If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed.


 * Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.


 * In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is.


 * Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.


 * For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Reliable sources (WP:RS). Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly. To discuss the reliability of specific sources, consult the Reliable sources/Noticeboard.


 * Reliable_sources This is a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources. The relevant policies on sources are Verifiability and No original research, and additional restrictions in biographies of living people. Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources. See Neutral point of view.


 * Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below).  Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.


 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.
 * Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications. Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. The choice of appropriate sources depends on context and information should be clearly attributed where there are conflicting sources.
 * * Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
 * * Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles.
 * * The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in such indexes should be used with caution.
 * * Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available.
 * Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic, or extremist may be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals, especially in articles about those organisations or individuals, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
 * Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic, or extremist may be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals, especially in articles about those organisations or individuals, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:


 * # it is not unduly self-serving;
 * # it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * # it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * # there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
 * # the article is not based primarily on such sources;


 * An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.


 * The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.  The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue.


 * How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.


 * Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) Wikipedia's medical articles, while not a source of medical advice, are nonetheless an important source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that medical articles be based on reliable published sources. These guidelines supplement the general guidelines at Reliable sources with specific attention to sources appropriate for medical and health-related articles. Ideal sources for these articles include general or systematic reviews in reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is also useful to reference seminal papers on a subject to document its history and provide context for the experts' conclusions.


 * Basic Advise: Respect secondary sources - Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim (see Wikipedia:No original synthesis). Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field.


 * Basic Advise: Summarize scientific consensus - Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed. Be careful of material in a journal that is not peer-reviewed reporting material in a different field. (See the Marty Rimm and Sokal affairs.)


 * Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.


 * Neutrality and no original research policies demand that we present the prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See Neutral Point of View.)


 * All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.


 * Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.


 * Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
 * * surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
 * * reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
 * * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.


 * Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Neutral point of view.


 * Fringe theories Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it.


 * We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.


 * A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject — such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself — should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird" or during "slow news days". (See junk food news, silly season, komkommertijd.)


 * Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior:  if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play.  Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.  Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as sock puppetry in AfD discussions, is strongly discouraged.  Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable:  Wikipedia is not an advertising venue.  (See also Links normally to be avoided, Conflict of interest, Autobiography guidelines.)


 * The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.


 * Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or in non-scientific contexts. The same holds true for conjectures and theories in other academic disciplines.


 * Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.


 * Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas.


 * One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject.


 * Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources, and, with clear editorial consensus, unreliable sources for exceptional claims may be rejected due to a lack of quality (see WP:REDFLAG).


 * Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source of information, summarizing the information gleaned from secondary sources, and in some cases from primary sources. Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's policies on original research. In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for reliability. This includes references, citations, and external links.


 * While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. For example, when trying to decide whether a fringe idea is prominent enough for inclusion in a particular article on a mainstream subject, mention of the fringe theory in an independent source firmly establishes its relevance. It can also provide a guide for describing the relationship of the fringe idea to the mainstream viewpoint.


 * Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.


 * --Destinero (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is homosexual
This article is soooo long. How can someone be considered gay or homosexual? If 2 men are friends and live in the same house, and they love each others as friends yet they never had any kind of sex, never slept together, never french kissed, etc., can they be considered homosexuals or gay couple?--119.73.1.60 (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#howdo and http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf (page 6-8) --Destinero (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Navbox in the religion subsection
Wouldn't it be better to move the Religion and homosexuality from the religion section to the bottom of the article with the rest of the navbox templates?--Rockfang (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done - the Navbox format was changed. Mish (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Japanese same-sex writings should be under East Asia?
I'd like to add, though I don't have an account, Ihara Saikauku's work translating The Great Mirror Of Male Love. This is a collection of Japanese texts, from the Classical Period, documenting male homosexual relationships, glorifying them, and often offering them with morals that are generalizable to all love, all social relationships, and all conduct in the Classical Period. If someone with an account could add a citation, that would be great.

24.130.118.66 (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For anyone interested in adding information about Japan and the above citation, relevant articles appear to include:


 * LGBT in Japan (redir. from Homosexuality in Japan)


 * Ihara Saikaku


 * Shudō


 * Dhilvert (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The following might also be of interest (and later versions might be better; this is from the good article era):  --Dhilvert (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've restored the text on Japan from the above link, but not added the specific reference requested by IP user above. --Dhilvert (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The lede and science and medicine
There is strong need to include critically important and relevant passage in the lead. "Between late 19th century and middle of the 20th century, homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder but due to failure of scientific studies to support this position, it was delisted from mental disorders list. There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. The consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation and that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder." I cannot imagine how such important facts could be excluded from the lede. --Destinero (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This article's lead was recently completely overhauled. It is at this moment the subject of additional discussion centred around one editor's objections to the consensus by which the new lead was developed and installed. Please review the progression, which you can see above. Rev 10 is the version for which consensus presently exists; there have been some tendentious reversion flurries, and it looks as if your comments here apply to a version of the lead not supported by consensus. I completely agree with the points you make here, and I think Rev 10's language probably addresses them adequately and accurately — do you agree? Please participate in the discussion &uarr;up there&uarr; so we haven't got ongoing threads about the lead in three places here on the talk page. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Will the maintenance of this article now not include additions or alterations to the lead with the justification that consensus agreed to a certain wording? I don't understand how this is defensible when the body of the article still has to be rewritten with proper sourcing to make it coherent. The lead is inherently faulty if it does not summarize the weight of what is presented, and since the body of the article has yet to be completed, who can say what weight is appropriate? Should I just take this article off my watchlist and leave you folks to ... do whatever it is you're doing? --Moni3 (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As has been repeatedly stated and agreed, right from the beginning of the process, the lead is not being placed under any kinds of a hands-off bell jar. I'm really not sure what would make you think otherwise. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 22:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that the rev 10 could be considered sufficient: "Between late 19th century and middle of the 20th century, homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder but due to failure of scientific studies to support this position, it was delisted from mental disorders list." The next statements create wholy new dimension: "There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. The consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation and that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder." I believe you can feel the difference. The need for including the several sentences of scientific and profesional consensus as well as the scientific evidence should be obvious. Imagine a hypothetical situation where the Earth would be delisted from the list of flat objects on the ground of scientific research and evidence. But that would not imply that the Earth is rounded. Clearly users of Wikipedia deserves to know of scientific evidence of roundness and proffesional consensus where it matters. Another good example could be the article on Evolution which would excluded the sentence "Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs". It is purpose of encyclopedia to present facts supported by the most reputable sources available to the readers (to be useful and extend their knowledge), isn't it? --Destinero (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The text you object to ("Between late 19th century(...)") is not a part of Rev 10. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 22:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Destinero, can you (or someone else) fix the grammatical problem in the text that has already been discussed above (from mental disorders list)? Aside from this point, I think your version is more easily understood than the current lead, since understanding the significance of 'delisting' requires some knowledge of context, which the current lead does not provide.  --Dhilvert (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will be glad to see the gramamtical problem corrected by someone with very good knowledge of English. --Destinero (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think thats a bit trying too hard for the LEAD. Again, using your example we dont say over and over that Earth is round in that article's lead. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a clear picture of round Earth in the lede of that article, thus your argument is invalid. That two required sentences is one of most essential ones to be in the lede, since this is closely connected with everything about homosexuality. --Destinero (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mish, (from above) I am sure you realize that there is a direct connection between Plato´s para physin (contrary to nature, or against nature) and the 19th c. 'contrary sexual feeling', coined by people who all read Plato, many if not most in the original. Also, while I understand exactly where you are coming from, claiming that homosexuality is a modern concept not applicable to events before the late 19th c, not everybody is in agreement with that position. I notice that a quick search for books in which the phrase "Greek homosexuality" appears returns over 900 results, not all of which refer to Dover´s book. So, I remain in favor of an inclusive, historical, view of homosexuality, which has room for all of human history, and the Greeks, Arabs, Chinese, Japanese, shamanic two-spirits, Renaissance Florentines, and what not. --Haiduc (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely, and it is most relevant to an article called History of homosexuality, an possible a summary of that article within an appropriate section in this article - but it seems inappropriate to incorporate these things into the lead. It is really stretchinga point to try and present some link between Greek pederasty, Molly marriage ceremonies, and what came to be pathologised and called 'homosexuality' (which is relevant to where we are at today).  What is important is that it was regarded as criminal behvaiour, then classed as a psychiatric disorder, then declassified and decriminalised, and there was a lesbian and gay social movement - that is all that is needed in the lead.  The rest can be expanded in another article, and isn't really that relevent to what exists today.  What is relevant is that what is now called homosexuality has been around a long time, and that communites and social practices have developed around some form of homosexual behaviour. Mish (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure our debate can ever have a mutually acceptable resolution. While you see such topics as belonging in History of homosexuality I see your approach to this article as being in need of a new title, Modern western homosexuality. What is background and what is figure? It will be interesting to see how thought on this topic evolves over the coming years. --Haiduc (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, the development of that began by locating homosexuals within a list of sexual psychopaths follows through the codes for homosexuality in the WHO's International Classification of Disease, and from which it was eventually dropped. Unlike the APA's DSM, ICD is international in scope, and is the standard in countries that do not use DSM.  When homosexuality was dropped from both DSM and ICD, it ceased being a psychiatric disorder per se.  That may have been a 'western perspective' but nevertheless, it was dropped by the WHO's ICD.  What the Greeks did, and what others did, had no bearing on ICD - that was based in modernity.  I acknowledge that many countries still prohibit this behaviour by law, nevertheless, it is still the case that most countries do not.  The countries that do not tend to be 'western, or 'developed' countries, but not exclusively.  The converse is not the case - prohibition is exclusive to 'developing' countries, I believe.  On this specific issue - that of mention of how homosexuality as the words came into being and what it denotes came to be seen as a specific sexual pathology, and the subsequent dropping of that approach - I do not see that has any implications for the title of this article.  That is because it is called 'Homosexuality' - not 'Mollies', not 'Greek pederasts', not Yemeni 'Xanith', not 'Urnings', not 'Inversion', etc., and while it may well be appropriate to summarise how we got to 'homosexuality' in the article, with reference to some more detailed historical article about it, it seems unnecessary in the lead.  I don't see what is so difficult about that concept. Mish (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Destinero, ok, here's another example. Some people also considered jews to be an inferior race, yet we dont say over and over they arent inferior in the jewish article. In the old lead we had "Homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation, along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum. " I think thats enough. Unfotunately its been changed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets go back to the old lead. Current lead is offensive and homo/bi-phobic
The new lead is a mess:

1) Pathological models were non existant before 19th century. Hence the current lead is incorrect as it implies that homosexuality was considered a disease until 20th century. This is incorrect. Disease/mental disorder view started in 19th century, not 1000 BC.

2) "Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex, situationally or in an enduring disposition" is surprisingly stupid. I also consider it offensive and homo/bi-phobic because it ignores bi people and denigrates homosexuality ('its something that happens in prison - "situationally"') by bringing something that is very rare to the main definition.


 * First of all, what is "situational" or "situational sexual behavior"?? Where are the sources? Wiki article, Situational sexual behavior doesnt even have sources. I've never seen a definition of homosexuality which mentioned "situational". I googled "Situational sexual behavior" and not much comes up. It seems to be like an invention of Haiduc, who is the type of person who uses gay orientation in quotes
 * Wiki article Situational sexual behavior defines it like this:

Situational sexual behavior is sexual behavior of a kind that is different from what is usual for that person (or from what that person normally exhibits) due to a social environment that permits, encourages, or compels those acts.

For example, people might not have sex with prostitutes in their home countries, but may do so when they visit other countries, where such activities are legal or ignored by authorities.

Other examples are people in prison, the military, single sex boarding schools, or other sex-segregated communities, where members of those communities might engage in homosexual behaviors but identify as heterosexual otherwise.

Many people change their sexual behaviour depending on the situation. For example, men and women in a university may practice bisexuality, but only in that environment. Experimentation of this sort is more common among adolescents, both male and female. Some colloquialisms for this trend include "heteroflexible", "BUG" (Bisexual Until Graduation), or "LUG" (Lesbian Until Graduation).


 * WTF? What is this supposed to mean? So a str8 person may turn gay/bi in prisons, the military and single sex boarding schools? Is this what we're supposed to understand from that? How do you know they were str8 in the first place? A str8 person who engages in "situational sexual behavior" may not be actually 100% str8, they could be 90% str8. Sexual orientation is a continuum. So that "situational" behaviour would have nothing to do with a "social environment that permits, encourages, or compels those acts."

3) "developed countries" there is utterly stupid. I've said this many times. Its not just the developed countries. By 2000, decriminalization was not mostly limited to them. See

4) Homosexual tendencies has negative connotations.

5) Orientation definition is incomplete. Currently the lead is like this: "As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is considered to lie within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum of human sexuality,[1] and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.".


 * As a sexual orientation, homosexuality does not ONLY refer to an individual’s identity.

6) "Destinero, ok, here's another example. Some people also considered jews to be an inferior race, yet we dont say over and over they arent inferior in the jewish article. In the old lead we had "Homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation, along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum. " I think thats enough. Unfotunately its been changed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)"

As I said, I consider the current lead to be offensive and I'm quite disappointed with people's lack of respect to WP:V. The old lead:

Homosexuality refers to sexual attraction or sexual behavior between people of the same sex or gender or to a sexual orientation. As an orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to" people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."[1][2]

Homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation, along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum. The most common modern terms for homosexual people are lesbian for women and gay for men although some prefer other terms or no indicators of sexual identity. The number of people who identify as homosexual — and the proportion of people who have same-sex sexual experiences — are difficult for researchers to estimate reliably for a variety of reasons.[3] In the modern West, major studies indicate a prevalence of 2% to 13% of the population.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] A 2006 study suggested that 20% of the population anonymously reported some homosexual feelings, although relatively few participants in the study identified themselves as homosexual.[15]

Homosexual relationships and acts have been admired as well as condemned throughout recorded history, depending on the form they took and the culture in which they occurred. Since the Stonewall riots in 1969,[16] widely considered the start of the modern LGBT rights movement, there has been increased visibility, recognition and legal rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, including the rights to marriage and civil unions, adoption and parenting, employment, military service, and equal access to health care.


 * I understand your point now - situational homosexuality as a concept is problematic because, if the way you describe it is correct, that isn't homosexuality. It is what heterosexual men do when they can't have sex with women, they have sex with other men instead.  Nothing to do with attraction to people of the same sex, simply heterosexual men having sex with other men. Mish (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have found that the APA uses 'romantic attraction' now in its recent report, so I guess I have to learn to accept that queer romance is a possibility. Mish (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did suggest that we ought to consider reverting, and re-work the revision. Mish (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How is two men in prison or the military having sex not homosexuality? They don't claim to be homosexuals (identity) but they engage in homosexual acts (behavior). The article should address this directly. --Moni3 (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. We have had consensus for at least a year now that homosexuality refers to more than just a sexual orientation. The last time—I guess it was last year—that the lede got major changes, we worded it very carefully to acknowledge that current usage of the word homosexuality refers to attraction, behavior, and orientation. Personally, I think of the orientation meaning as the main one, but that's my problem. I did fight to make sure that orientation was included the first sentence, anyway. That lede did no harm, in terms of misleading readers, but it was clumsily written and didn't reflect the contents of the article very well.
 * The new lede omits the word orientation from the first sentence, but I think that "enduring disposition" states the concept decently, and orientation is dealt with explicitly in the next sentence. Overall, it reads better. A lot better. It also summarizes the contents of the article, as any lede should. (And, hopeless romantic that I am, I like that romantic has been added into the mix.)
 * Some thoughts on Phoenix's specific objections above. I do not agree at all that the new lede "implies that homosexuality was considered a disease until 20th century". Maybe I'm missing something, since I tend to take article ledes literally, at their face value, but I just don't see it.
 * Neither do I agree that the new lede denigrates anyone or implies anything about prison sex. Homosexual behavior is part of homosexuality. It does happen in prison (among gay, bi, and straight prisoners) and in other single-sex contexts, but it also happens every day in this world in lots of other places, among gay, bi, and straight people. When non-gay people engage in homosexual behavior, it doesn't mean they "turned gay"; it simply means they engaged in homosexual behavior. So what? It is inconvenient that homosexual has more than one meaning, but it's something that demands acknowledgment in the lede.
 * As I said before, I think that Phoenix has a point about the word tendencies. I don't think it's absolutely verboten, given that one definition matches the intended meaning, but I do think it is a word that's better avoided.
 * The lede doesn't say that sexual orientation refers only to an individual's identity. The word only isn't there and I don't see that it is implied in any way. However, I would have no objection to everything after the comma getting the chop; I like the wording, but I don't think it's essential in the lede. Rivertorch (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * " but it also happens every day in this world in lots of other places, among gay, bi, and straight people. When non-gay people engage in homosexual behavior, it doesn't mean they "turned gay"; it simply means they engaged in homosexual behavior. So what? " Are you talking to yourself or are you answering to me because thats not what I've said? The lead currently says homosexuality happens either if you're gay or due to "a social environment that permits, encourages, or compels those acts" This ignores bisexuals and straight people who have homosexual sex because they want to and not because of a "a social environment that permits, encourages, or compels those acts" Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you did mention prison and I thought I was responding to you. (I have a pathological fear of talking to myself, although once upon a time I had this imaginary friend....) The thread is a little confusing as to who said what, what with various indentations, quotations, and so on. Did someone drop their trusty tildes somewhere along the way?
 * I would suggest that "permits, encourages, or compels" pretty much covers the waterfront—but it's not in the lede in the first place; it's in a different WP article. Correct me (gently) if I'm wrong, but I think you're arguing either that:
 * (1) the first sentence of the lede of the Homosexuality article should explicitly mention the existence of "bisexuals and straight people who have homosexual sex because they want to" or
 * (2) that the current wording somehow implies that those people don't exist.
 * Or if neither of the above, maybe you could expand and clarify so we can get on the same page. Rivertorch (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 2. I already explained this, read above. Phoenix of9 (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I've read everything you wrote above at least once, but I don't see that implication. �Maybe I'm missing something once again, but I don't see a failure to mention something as an implication that it doesn't exist. Rivertorch (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Current text: "Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex, situationally or in an enduring disposition" This means that homosexulity is either due to a "social environment that permits, encourages, or compels those acts" (thats the definition of "situational") or due to a gay sexual orientation (enduring disposition). Again, this ignores non-gay people who have homosexual sex which doesnt have anything to do with any cultural/environmental reason. (bisexuals and straight people who have homosexual sex because they want to) I dont understand what you dont understand. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said above, "I don't see a failure to mention something as an implication that it doesn't exist". Saying homosexuality is due to those things isn't the same as saying it's due to those things only. In other words, it's "ignoring" non-gay people in a sense, but only for the purposes of the lede; it's not saying there aren't any. We cannot possibly cover every situation in the lede. I think it is appropriate to note what you're saying in the article, but not necessarily in the lede. (Part of the problem here may be the word situationally, which I guess means different things to different people.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no sources for situationally so I'm going by the definition in Wikipedia. As I said, its offensive that situationally, a rare situation, is covered and others arent. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix of9, I like some of the points you have raised in this discussion. Would you mind expressly writing out how you would now present the lead to the article based on what you have said here? You can use ",, and" to set it off for us. Then the other editors can see the precise new wording you are proposing and make suggestions accordingly. And remember, it’s a lead: it’s not supposed to cover ever nuance of the article. It shouldn’t be overly long. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I guess it should be done above as 5.13 Rev 12. — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I already did. Phoenix of9 (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Spike is suggesting creating a Rev 12 section. I think that for consistency and readability, it might help. I'll do that now, and leave it blank. If you'd be kind enough to type or paste your proposal into it, we can continue the discussion up there. Rivertorch (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC) And here it is. Rivertorch (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Great job!
Just want everyone to know that this is a great, well rounded article. Great work to all who contributed. Tdinatale (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Map to update
The world homosexuality laws map (currently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg) should be updated. India announced that homosexual acts are legal in this country: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/02/india.sex.ruling/index.html --Sigurdas (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Near this map, at the end of section 9.1, there is a statement that all countries that ban homosexual acts are in Africa or Asia. While most such countries are on those continents, not all are. There are several Caribbean & Pacific island nations where such acts are illegal, as well as Guyana (according to said map). This can be verified on the page referenced just before this section, whose exact title I forget. It's something along the lines of LGBT rights by Country.

99.141.50.92 (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Joe
 * I've amended the text to reflect the map more closely in the light of your comment; I am not sure the figure of ten countries with death penalty is still correct. Mish (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Romantic" & article lead
The lede has been a point of serious contention in the past. It's still far from perfect, either in the abstract or in terms of WP guidelines, but it does represent a compromise based on consensus. As I see it, the wording as it has pretty much stood for a long time now doesn't exclude other meanings (such as romantic attraction in addition to sexual attraction), but it gets way too wordy and the meaning becomes awkward if we start explicitly putting other meanings in. (For instance, if romantic attraction, why not romantic behavior as well?) Maybe this is a good time to hash out a whole new lede; I don't know. But the way it's structured now, I really think it's best left alone. Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly appreciate the precarious balance of text in an article on a subject considered by some to be contentious, and I agree with your objection to the clunky "and/or". However, I cannot agree with placing the article's lead under a hands-off bell jar simply because it has stood in its current form for some arbitrarily "long time"; argumentum ad antiquitam is a logical fallacy. Nor do I agree with placing it off-limits for improvement in its precision and accuracy because some might consider it "way too wordy". We are writing an encyclopædia here: our task is to create articles that clearly define and describe their subject matter. Definitions that don't explicitly include all salient aspects of the subject matter are incomplete, even if they don't explicitly exclude the missing relevant points.


 * Regrettably though it may be from a lexical standpoint, romantic attraction and romantic behaviour amongst members of the same sex are covered by the English term homosexuality:, , , , , , , , , . That being the well-supported case, it is incumbent upon us to include romantic attraction and behaviour in the lead definition of the term covered by this present article. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think that it is essential to present the romantic aspect of homosexual bonding, and that it must be in the lede, and that it should precede the sexual aspect. Haiduc (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I neither take issue with "romantic" being in the lede nor think that the lede should be untouchable. What I do suggest is that there is no evidence that consensus has changed about the current wording, and therefore, given the contention (involving the lede specifically, not the article in general) in the past, it would be an excellent idea to propose new wording first. That way, we'll be less likely to revisit the same arguments all over again. My goal in making this request is primarily to prevent unnecessary recurring déjà vu moments of drama. Perhaps I'm overly worried about that.


 * The main problem with the lede, as I see it, is that it is merely a definition when it should be a summary of the article that follows. We might be able to fix that by rewriting the lede and moving the definitions down to the next section, although I'm dubious. The lede would still need to summarize the definitions section, and it would have to do so very succinctly. I'm willing to participate in a complete rewrite, but I strongly urge a sandbox approach. Rivertorch (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought what we had was well-written but if an alternative was presented here for discussion I'm certainly open to anything that would be improving on what we have. -- Banj e  b oi   19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed lead
Here is a start at proposed text for an improved lead. I have copyedited the existing lead to reduce redundancy and stiltedness, improve flow, incorporate romantic per &uarr;above&uarr;, and paraphrase rather than directly quote the cited sources: —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It reads well. One giant red flag: the phrase "homosexual orientation". There was a serious dispute over that, which resulted in this article being split into two, with a separate Homosexual orientation article. Imo, it was a POV fork based largely on one editor's apparent desire to put a firewall around the concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation, in effect putting gay people who acknowledged being gay but remained chaste into a separate (read: arguably better) class from sexually active gay people. The separate article remained for many months and, after much discussion, was merged back into this article. One of the most compelling rationales behind the merge was that "homosexual orientation" is a term outside mainstream usage, so it would be opening a real can of worms to reinsert it, I think. If you have time, check the archives. (MiszaBot was unleashed here at some point last year, so all this is likely across multiple threads on several archive pages.)


 * Also, let's keep in mind that if we're doing anything more than another stopgap measure here, the lede, according to guidelines, should summarize the main points of the article, not just define the term. Rivertorch (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the use of 'romantic' problematic, in part because it is alien to me (I assumed it was something heterosexuals do), and such a nebulous concept I was tempted to remove it. I had to discuss this with my partner (she has more experience of homosexuality than I do) and she said that when I bake bread or make her a cup of tea, that is romantic.  If that is the case, then I guess it's OK.  I'm sure people who are homosexual make each other cups of tea or coffee just like people who are heterosexual might. Mish (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mish, I can't tell if you're being serious or trying for a tongue-in-cheek comment. If you're being serious, please refer to the 10 refs provided above for the legitimacy of including romantic as a core component of homosexuality as currently understood (supplanting earlier, disparaging assumptions that it constitutes nothing more than an aberrant behaviour).


 * Rivertorch: Oy vey. The lengths to which some (such as the firewall editor you describe) will go to promulgate their own POV! Okeh, that's good to know. I agree with you that the lead should summarise the article and not just define its subject matter — reckoned we'd get past the initial issue of incorporating "romantic" and then work from there. I'll chew on it some more and put forth another proposal soon. In the meantime, anyone else is certainly welcome to do likewise! —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 00:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have said "Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or ...." Haiduc (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 1
Here's my next go. The first paragraph defines, and the subsequent ones summarise. The current lead strays from its task and goes into extensively-cited detail about e.g. prevalence; I propose to move that detailed coverage (and associated refs) to the appropriate sections of the article text below the TOC.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheinwerfermann (talk • contribs) 07 29, 2009


 * This is shaping up nicely. I like how you sidestepped the issue of orientation in the first paragraph by defining the concept without using the word; that works for me. Two questions:
 * If we took out the first period and inserted "or" to make it all one sentence, would that sentence be too long? The reason I ask is that the proposed construction might be seen as downplaying the orientation definition by relegating it to the second sentence.
 * Can we manage without citations in the lede? I'm not opposed to them per se, but they do interrupt the visual flow a bit and I know a lot of Wikipedians think they are better left for later in an article. Rivertorch (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why we are doing this here instead of in the article, but here goes:

Haiduc (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First point - it was not only treated as mental illness, but as criminal activity.
 * Second point - you should only refer to 'homosexual romance' in the lead if there is a section that deals with 'homosexual romance' in the body of the text, as the lead is a summary of what is in the body, and having ten sources does not count for much unless the terms are unpacked somewhere in the main text. All these seem to show is that people like Giddens (who is a notable sociologist, but no authority on sexuality, sexology,  LGBT studies in general or homosexuality in particular) use the term.  If there were a link to an article Homosexual romance, which shows the term can be taken for granted, fine - otherwise it needs to be dealt with in the article before it can be inserted into the lead.
 * Third point, my earlier comment about this was made with ironic and humorous intent, because I have only come across the term 'romance' used in this context, at conferences, ironically or critically. Just because a term is used in sources does not mean that it can be used in the lead when it is not in the text, for example, "Homosexuals deserve to be executed or tortured" Mish (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This version is quite non-sensical. "Homosexuality can be situational if it is temporary and factored by external conditions" is UNDUE weight. Def shouldnt be in the lead. Its also too Western centric. In West this in west that. "Since the late 1960s in the West, homosexuality has come to be widely regarded as a normal condition". WORLD health organization removed homosexuality as a mental disorder and few countries disagree with this.

Homosexuality can refer to erotic attraction, sexual behavior, emotional attachment and a definition of self [Diamond, 2003; Eliason and Morgan, 1998). A homosexual person is an individual "whose primary erotic, psychological, emotional and social interest is in a member of the same sex, even though those interests may not be overtly expressed [Martin and Lyon, 1971] A common synonym for homosexual is gay. Homosexual women may also be referred as lesbians.

I'll add more later. Phoenix of9 (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Phoenix, that is exactly my point. The lede IS too Wester centric, and has been so all along. So, if you are going to make all these generalizations which are applicable largely to the Western ambit, you must qualify them as such, or else risk leaving readers with a false impression that was is true of the West is true of everybody else as well. So let's be sure to NOT be ethnocentric.
 * And let's not skew things too much in the favor of the "gay orientation" side either. I have read (though I did not keep the ref), in light of the recent Iranian murders of the two boys involved with each other, that most if not all Iranian boys fool around. And that is just one example. From a historical perspective, situational prevails over orientation. So yes, it needs to be treated at the outset, or, again, risk being ethnocentric. Haiduc (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Find sources then. Anectodal stories dont really matter. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 2
Rivertorch, I see your point about refs, but it seems to me we ought to support at least those assertions most likely to catch the eye of POV-pushers seeking to worm their opinions in. As for your other question: Yes. Removing that period would make the sentence too long, IMO. I agree with you, Haiduc and Phoenix, that the lead needs expansion to account for substantial differences in perspective and status at the international level, and to increase emphasis on the situational side. I've done so below with more internal links. I don't agree with your preference, Mish, to quash the inclusion of romantic. We have ample reliable support for the inclusion of romantic, so in it should go. You definitely raise a valid point that it needs coverage in the main text of the article, but I'm not convinced by your argument that this valid, supported, and apposite term should be kept out of the lead until it is well covered in the main text. Please remember that the state of most articles on Wikipedia is unfinished; we're working towards incremental improvement here. When romantic is included in the lead, if one of us participating in this thread doesn't do the work to get a start including it in the main text, sooner than later somebody else will. If that doesn't happen in some reasonable amount of time, then it will be appropriate to discuss removing it from the lead. I do, though, agree with your excellent reminder that homosexuality was (and in many places still is) a crime. Please take a look:

—Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 14:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is too vague. What does it mean to say that "homosexuality" was a crime? The feelings? The actions? The romantic part? The sexual part? Which sexual part? The whole thing is an oversimplification and misleads the reader. It was not homosexuality that was illegal, since there is so much that is included by that term, but only certain aspects of homosexual expression, which may have varied from place to place. What was true in England was not true in France and certainly was not true in Italy. And we have not even left Europe yet. Haiduc (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it vague, or is it concise? This what we're discussing is a lead; it's meant to convey a concise overview summary of what's to be covered in detail in the article. I think "Homosexuality is punishable by death in some places" is a reasonable, concise summary of the situation; obviously greater coverage is needed in the article (after the lead) as to the details of what exactly is illegal, in which countries, and which precise acts are punishable by death under what specific circumstances. The lead is not the right place to go into that kind of detail. Likewise, while the circumstances surrounding the U.K. decriminalisation in 1967 are complicated and warrant substantial coverage, "Homosexuality was partially decriminalized in the U.K. in 1967" suffices for the lead. Do you have a better suggestion for how to summarise these salient points in the lead, without trying to cram the entire article into it? —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 16:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Since the late 1960s, homosexuality has come to be widely regarded, especially in the West" is stupid. China has 1.4 billion people, more than the population of the West. Yet it doesnt regard homosexuality as a mental disorder. There are prolly more Xtian conversion therapy crap in US than in China altho US population is much lower. "especially in the West" is not warrented. "Since the late 1960s" ignored stuff like ancient Greek times. Current version reads better.
 * "Since the Stonewall riots in 1969,[17] widely considered the start of the modern LGBT rights movement, there has been increased visibility, recognition and legal rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, including the rights to marriage and civil unions, adoption and parenting, employment, military service, and equal access to health care." Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that wording like 'homosexuality is a crime' needs to read more like 'homosexual acts are treated as criminal' (or whetever). I agree that the lead is a summary of the body of the article, and for that reason I don't agree on the inclusion of 'romance' in the lead when there is no mention in the text, in the hope that somebody someday will get around to this.  This is not a personal whim, it is indicated in WP:MOS.  This is more critical when there is no article on Homosexual romance itself, and skimming articles on Romance there are no sections on homosexuality either.  I doubt I would be the only person who found it confusing to see this in the lead, and when seeking more information could find nothing on this in the encyclopedia that I could follow up on to expand the reference.  Not very encyclopedic at all, and while this may be a deficiency in the enclyclopedia, I don't see using it as a reference in the lead of one article addresses the deficit.  I am intrigued and keen to learn what homosexual romance is all about. Mish (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 3
Mish, I can see how anyone could easily have missed the article's existing references to romantic relationships; they were not very conspicuous within an awkwardly-named subsection. I have made them more conspicuous and bolstered their support with this edit. Furthermore, the main article linked from the relevant section of this article — Same-sex relationship — has as its first sentence A same-sex relationship can take one of many forms, from romantic and sexual, to non-romantic close relationships between two persons of the same gender. (emphasis mine). So while I definitely think this aspect needs considerable expansion, it is present in the article, and has been for some time. This would seem to satisfy your objection to romance being present in the lead.

Phoenix of 9, you also raise a good point—even if you do it with unproductive words like "stupid"—with regard to China (and now India). I don't think I agree with putting Stonewall in the lead, for that would skew it very heavily towards the U.S. experience. Here's another proposal:

—Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 4
Forgive me, I edit compulsively. Let me try for more brevity and a bit more specificity. We can not refer to "homosexuality" as an "it" when it really is a "they". Also, identity cannot be situational, so it cannot go in the first sentence. Conversion "therapy" is such a minor quirk it has no business in the lede. The focus on blame is inappropriately negative, it must be preceded by, and balanced with, praise. "From others" is redundant, since that is who we usually hide from. The 3rd para repetition of H not being a disease is redundant, we heard that already. Same for disapproval still persisting. Haiduc (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing to forgive (except perhaps the trivial housekeeping matter of not putting a subhead above your rev for easy section editing ;-) I've taken the liberty of doing so, hope you don't mind.) ! I like your revision quite a lot. The only quibbles I think of are minor:


 * 1) Open expression of one's homosexual orientation is known as coming out of(...). In fact, only the transition from hiding to open expression of one's homosexuality is known as "coming out". Ongoing such expression is not known as "coming out", but rather as "being out". For this reason, I prefer something closer to my proposed wording ("Cessation of this hiding(...)"). I'll bet we can figure out an optimal compromise here.
 * 2) At the present time there is an accelerating trend(...) This, to me, makes the phenomenon seem more sudden and recent than it actually is. Certainly the trend is presently accelerating at a rate unprecedented in the last century, but there's been a well-documented trend in this direction since the late 1960s; I think we should say so to provide accurate historical context for the reader. What do you say? —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 01:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 5

 * Thank you for all that. Actually, I had surreptitiously fiddled with the text, maybe even as you were writing your comments, so I will copy it below and revise it as per your suggestions (and who knows what else.) I also moved and edited the text on young people and homophobia, its previous placement rankled.
 * Haiduc (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Haiduc (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel like we're narrowing in on a good lead, but I don't like Starting in the mid-1900s. That would refer to roughly the year 1905, which is not what's intended. "Mid-late 20th century" would work, as would "Late 1960s". I like how you've reworded the homophobia reference and the coming-out language, but I need to think for awhile about your placement of the former. Also, how defensible is the assertion When praised those aspects have been seen as a way to improve society? That's sure to be challenged; can we back it up robustly? —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 02:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right about the mis-statement. However, thinking about it, the liberation movement actually started in England in the eighteen hundreds and Hirschfeld in Germany at the turn of the century. How about "Starting in the eighteen hundreds in western Europe same-sex love culture began to emerge from the shadows. The trend towards increased visibility, acceptance, and civil rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people accelerated in the second half of the twentieth century and continues today."?
 * Yes, we can defend the statement with the Greeks and the Japanese. Maybe we can have a collaboration on an article, Historical praise of homosexuality? Haiduc (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ulrichs came before anything in England, and published liberationary pamphlets in the mid-19th century. Then came Edward Carpenter in England, who blended socialism, mysticism and homosexual emancipation, then Hirschfeld in Germany.  The more recent homosexual equality movement in England started in the 1950s, followed by the lesbian and gay liberation movements in the 1960's.  So, in relation to recent homosexual emancipation, the 1950s would be more accurate in an article on homosexuality (rather than gay lib from the 1960s), but the origins of homosexual emancipation can be traced back to the 1860s.  Mish (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am thinking of Byron and his circle, William Johnson Cory, Carpenter, and the Uranians, but all these are details. I think as long as we touch upon the nineteenth century as marking the first stirrings of freedom, and the mid-twentieth C as when they began to really gather steam, we will be fine. Haiduc (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 6
—Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on a parade here, but concentrating on the lead of this article is a noble and brave but misguided effort. Leads summarize the content of the article, and this one is long, but that does not mean it is well-researched and comprehensive. Instead, it covers information that dozens or hundreds of editors have decided are important issues, and has gone through a crisis and response kind of editing pattern where reversion and arguments here on the talk page concentrate on a single paragraph, sentence, or source.

I was asked to overhaul this article and I declined because it would be a never-ending battle. However, it could probably be done over the course of several months with a group of dedicated editors of any ideological persuasion as long as they had the best sources and writing as their top priority, and agree to certain issues: not to use religious writings to prove scientific theory for example, to give full weight to religious ideas in the appropriate section, and style points like not citing issues more than three times, bumping further cites to a notes section. The lead is the last part of the article that should be written.

If you asked several editors who have worked on this article or participated on the talk page to list the most recurring issues on the talk pages, these issues would indicate where the strongest sources are necessary. Get editors to work in twos to build specific sections. There are ten sections right now. Sources, actually should determine how many sections there are. Are there 20 editors who worked on this article and are available to research and write a section? Could the effort to write this article be a model for clusterf*cks that have gone to ArbCom and such? In my wildest dreams. --Moni3 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I must respectfully disagree with you. For one thing, improvement of any aspect of an article is seldom misguided, even (as is usually the case) there are other aspects of the article also in need of improvement. Most articles on Wikipedia are incrementally improved in fits and starts, not according to any prescribed master plan laying out a rigid order of operations to be followed. Certainly we don't delay improvements to the lead, as you seem to be suggesting, simply because the rest of the article is not "finished". Most articles on Wikipedia are unfinished; that is the nature of this project. You're more or less right that writing the lead is one of the last steps in producing an article for an ink-on-dead-trees encyclopædia, but this is not an ink-on-dead-trees encyclopædia.


 * You say the lead covers information that dozens or hundreds of editors have decided are important issues, and you're correct. That is known as consensus, and is a key part of how this project works. You also say this article has gone through a crisis and response kind of editing pattern where reversion and arguments here on the talk page concentrate on a single paragraph, sentence, or source, and you're correct there, too; this is known as the bold-revert-discuss cycle, and is another aspect of how this project works. This what we're covering is considered by some to be a contentious topic, so the frequency and intensity of discussion and debate are naturally higher than on, say, Strawberry.


 * I'm not entirely sure what to make of your having been asked to overhaul this article and declining because it would've been an endless battle. Sometimes an individual will tackle a major cleanup of an article in need. If the article covers a contentious topic, that individual can become a focal point for intense debate and discussion, but in any case article content, tone, and style are still determined by consensus, and no individual owns the article.


 * Finally, the proposed lead in its latest form is fully compliant with the applicable provisions of WP:LEAD, which does not seem to include the concerns you raise here. To wit, the proposal:


 * serves both as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article, and
 * stands alone as a concise overview of the article, and
 * defines the topic, establishes context, explains why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarises the most important points including any notable controversies, and
 * presents material in rough accord with its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and
 * is not more than four paragraphs long.


 * It is to be hoped that the article text as a whole will continue to be gradually improved. However, no good is served by delaying one necessary improvement until a list of other improvements is complete. You have not presented anything to persuade me to discontinue this present effort at lead improvement. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 14:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fundamentally, we are approaching material and article quality from completely separate philosophies. Wikipedia allows the bold, revert, discuss style and consensus, but look at where it gets articles that are controversial. It simply does not work. It makes articles incoherent and leads to endless squabbling on talk pages. But it's what the majority of Wikipedians seem to accept as the best that can be done. If I'm the only person on the talk page to say this, then I'm not surprised, but it represents an approach far below what editors are capable of. Instead, it promotes the least common denominator. Volunteers that have access to the best possible and most comprehensive reliable sources are able to set high standards and meet them. There is no reason a group of dedicated and skilled editors would not be able to get this article to FA quality within three months. The discipline, will, and clearly, a common reason to improve the entire article must be in place. This is not the case at this point, unfortunately.
 * Nevertheless, I wish you luck in this endeavor. My purpose in participating in this discussion was to state that the editors who frequent this article should step back and consider the totality of it as opposed to a section. My response to you is to assert that there higher standards are possible, and the way things are done in most articles is not the way it must be done. --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see this as a situation where everyone is right. The concerted group effort is fine if it can coalesce. Tough here, because I would guess that editors on LGBT topics are even more individualistic that the average Wiki editor, and that is saying a lot. Until such a project comes together, the sort of hit-and-run tactic of taking sections one at a time, as we have been doing with the lede, is the next best approach. It's a somewhat Darwinian process, but look where that has got us. Haiduc (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Haiduc (i.e., with both Moni and Scheinwerfermann). The article as a whole would benefit from a thorough overhaul, and the lede should be rewritten at the end of that process to reflect the new content. Until that happens, significant improvements can be made in a piecemeal fashion, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be. "Endless squabbling on talk pages" is, imo, vastly preferable to edit wars, which is why I suggested drafting a new lede here. Rivertorch (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 7
I would like to merge rev 5 and 6, since I do not see how we can honestly stand by the generalizations that are implied by the unqualified use of the term "homosexual." For example, in the first sentence we claim that H is attraction or behavior. Then we go on to say that H was prohibited. What was prohibited? The attraction? The behavior? What behavior? Kissing and handholding? Raping little boys? The whole thing makes no sense, and is simply a vague blank screen for people to project their personal beliefs and prejudices. Even in the lede, especially in the lede, things must be spelled out as clearly as possible. Let me give this one more try:

Haiduc (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point; I like your use of homosexual relations in the part about legal status. That makes it much clearer. Another part of your proposal, though, seems not to be an improvement. You propose The human prevalence of homosexual orientation is difficult to determine accurately. That's true, but the more encompassing difficulty we're trying to convey is that of determining the prevalence of any/all aspects of homosexuality (as we define it here) amongst humans, whether it be physical sex amongst same-gender individuals, pursuit of romantic relationships amongst same-gender individuals, open or hidden self-identification as homosexually oriented, or whatever combination or permutation of these. You're correct that it is somewhat difficult to determine the prevalence of homosexual orientation amongst humans, for some who are thus oriented won't admit it. But that is only a part of the difficulty we're trying to convey, not the whole of it. I think The human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately does a better job of accurately and completely representing the referent difficulty.


 * You also propose studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual orientation. That's not so. The studies, in general, suggest between 2% and 20% of the population exhibit some degree of homosexuality as we define it here (i.e., romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same gender). A subset of those studies looks at the prevalence and relative strength of declared homosexual orientation, but here again, I think some degree of homosexuality is the more accurate representation of the totality what we're trying to convey; it includes those who consider themselves basically straight but who have sex with members of the same gender, those who consider themselves 100% homosexual, and everyone in between. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 19:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with both observations, please amend accordingly. The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is the absolute implication of that 2 to 20 figure. That does not allow for universal homosexuality, which may well be the rule in most if not all human societies when unencumbered by religious fetters. The 2 to 20 may simply be an irreducible minimum. So I would propose this, "The current human prevalence of homosexual orientation is difficult to determine accurately; studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual orientation, though in many previous cultures homosexual relations were the rule rather than the exception. Throughout history, individual aspects have been admired or condemned according to various societies' sexual norms." What say you? Haiduc (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent point on the figures. "The rule rather than the exception" might not be the best way to phrase it, though. How 'bout The current human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately. Studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual tendency, though in many previous cultures homosexual relations were extremely common. Throughout history, individual aspects of homosexuality have (...) Whatchya think? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it. Zazaban (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Extremely common" is ok, so is "prevalent and normal." We need to convey the universality as well as the centrality of the custom. What do you think? Haiduc (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's better. A bit more encyclopedic too. Zazaban (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I can't help thinking that the first paragraph would be stronger without its second sentence. The "this" is potentially vague, the sentence breaks up the flow, and it just doesn't seem important enough to lead off the article in the way it does. Rivertorch (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 8
Incorporating latest suggestions to come up with this latest proposal. Haiduc, I like prevalent but not normal; this implies that homosexuality is (presently considered) abnormal, which is opposite to the present philosophical trend. Rivertorch, I haven't struck the second sentence altogether, but I've combined it into the first and deëmphasised it. Whatchya think?

—<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good collaborators, good process, good result. Haiduc (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Much better. I wonder if "tendency" might be replaced by either "orientation" or, if that seems too foreshadowy, "disposition". (I won't quote definitions from any particular dictionary, but try looking up the three words and see if you see what I mean.) The rest of it seems quite carefully worded, and nothing jumps out at me in terms of undue weight. One minor point: I'm not 100% sure about the last sentence. The phrasing—"Terms...for homosexual people include..."—suggests that "lesbian", "gay", and "LGBT" are supposed to be nouns, although generally only the first one should be used as a noun (and some people consider that problematic). Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, 'adjectives' should replace 'terms', as 'gay' as a 'noun' is problematic. Also, LGBT does not collectively refer to people who are 'gay' or 'lesbian', it also includes people who identify as 'bisexual' and 'transgender' (and some include 'intersex'), who are not homosexual and may not identify as 'lesbian' or 'gay' either. So you need to reword this to say that LGBT includes lesbian and gay, rather than being a collective term for homosexual, or leave it out. Mish (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rev 9
Rivertorch, I like your suggestion to replace tendency by disposition (orientation is troublesome; please see above). Excellent catch (and you, Mish) on nouns vs. adjectives and imprecision regarding LGBT. Voici: —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 13:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This reads much better, except that lesbian and gay identified people are included in the acronym LGBT, but not people who are homosexual and do not identify as part of LGBT. This is why I specifically worded in my response as the preferred 'gay' and 'lesbian' to 'homosexual'; if 'homosexual' is used, then this should be qualified as being those who identify as being part of LGBT.  For example, radical-feminist and lesbian journalist and writer Julie Bindel has been very clear that she does not have any wish to be lumped in with a lot of folks defined by odd sexual characteristics as 'LGBT... [whatever]', and within the conservative Christian ex-gay movement, people tend to identify themselves as trying to reduce their homosexual dispositions in contrast to identifying as gay/lesbian or LGBT. Mish (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rev 10
It looks like probably the best way forward is to strike LGBT altogether. There are plenty of links to it elsewhere on the article page. Shall we make it an even ten, then?

—<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 16:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I was suggesting "disposition" for the last word in the first sentence. Rivertorch (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not edit that before anybody else comments, so there is no misunderstanding. Mish (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shazam! —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 18:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than create yet another section, I made some changes to Rev 10 above in the hope that comparing the diff would be easier than other methods. (If anyone wants it in a new section instead, feel free to copy, paste, and revert—it's fine with me.) Most of my changes are of the copyediting sort intended to make the wording clearer, but some do potentially change the perceived meaning. Rivertorch (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your copyedits, and am leaning towards considering them the finishing touches. The traffic at this discussion has slowed considerably, which is making me think we have developed it to the point of consensus for installation of the above as the article's new lead. Any future quibbles or questions can be decided in new discussions here on the talk page — what do you think? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 16:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. We might give it a little longer and see if anyone else has thoughts. (It being Monday and all.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure thing (and it's not just Monday, it's also Awkwardly-Named Holiday Day!). Let's give it another day or so, then go live if no big objections come forth. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good to me. Mish (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the recent 'second half' →　'middle' change, is the listed ref supposed to support this point? Dhilvert (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My minor tweaks just now were purely grammatical — One cannot properly say since the second half of (whatever time period). Either In the second half of or Since the middle of is fine, though because the delisting and decriminalisation has continued into the 21st century, only Since the middle of the 20th century is an accurate description of the timeframe. As for your question regarding the ref, I think it probably ought to be removed and not replaced; as discussed &uarr;above&uarr;, the detailed discussion and supporting refs are best contained in the main article text. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 03:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. One final question from me: should we use consistent spelling throughout the article? I personally don't care whether it follows American or Canadian/British conventions, and I'm not even bothered when an article flips back and forth, but the guidelines suggest internal consistency. (E.g., Rev 10 contains both behaviour and decriminalized.) Rivertorch (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It also contained both behavior and behaviour. I've arbitrarily modified this for the initial occurrence (Am. spelling). Dhilvert (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that'll've probably been my fault; having lived outside the U.S. for awhile, it's now an effort to remember to use U.S. spellings when that's appropriate. Good catch. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The change was not purely grammatical. 'Since the middle' much more strongly suggests a shift occurring in mid century than does the prior revision (however grammatically dubious).  A possible (but awkward) replacement might be 'Starting in the second half of'.  Dhilvert (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we can't say it was delisted "starting in the second half of the 20th century", since the delisting itself was ephemeral. We could try splitting the sentence into two sentences, the delisting and the decriminalization, I suppose. My brain is operating at reduced power today. Want to have a go? Rivertorch (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to get into a grammatical pissing match; go see Strunk & White or Funk & Wagnall. I've added "gradually" to convey the temporally spread-out nature of the delisting and decriminalisation without resorting to syntactic contortions. We could easily substitute progressively if that is thought to be preferable Dhilvert, I trust this addresses your unhappiness? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be happiest to see edits occurring directly in the article, and I see no reason why Rev. 10 as it stands could not be substituted in, but as for the above, Rivertorch might be right to suggest that the two points be handled separately. Not only does Homosexuality mention decriminalization starting prior to the middle of the century, but there are examples of decriminalization occurring even earlier (e.g., in Japan).  Alternatively, some sort of vague language such as In recent history could be used to refer to decriminalization and delisting considered together.


 * If you do remove the delisting reference from the text (as discussed earlier), it would be nice to add it somewhere else in the article. (If it is already there, then I have missed it.) --Dhilvert (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've quite a few quibbly points with Rev 10, are all previous revs done already? And how do you wish new input to go? Just edit the draft or write out each one or something else? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Copy, paste, and edit box, and then we can slug it out. --Haiduc (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, seems ironically fruitless, once we're only discussing one version I'll be happy to rejoin. I really can't cope discussing four versions at once. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   21:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't we just put this in and squibble over the little details later? Zazaban (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Benjiboi, I'm not sure where your confusion is coming from. We are discussing only one version. The point of keeping the various revs is to make the conversation more efficient, not to create competing versions of proposed leads. Each new rev supersedes the previous, but the previous is not deleted. This way, everyone can see how the discussion has progressed without having to slog through diffs and revision histories. The last tweaks to Rev 10 have been minor housekeeping type fixes; we appear to have (contextually) broad consensus to insert Rev 10 as it presently stands as the new lead, and so I am going to do so now. Of course, like the rest of the article, it will be subject to continued discussion and improvement by consensus.
 * Dhilvert: Yes. The ref's a good one, it just wants placing more aptly. I'll see to that in the lead-replacement edit I'm about to make. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems now only Rev 10 is showing, so do I change the text to what I think it should be or present new wording? Or do I do something else? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   11:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All previous revs can still be viewed; up at the top of this section you'll see "Compacted discussion through Rev 9", and by clicking the adjacent Show button, you'll expand all the previous discussion. At any time, you or I or anyone else can put up another revision (it would in this case be Rev 11) for comment, but it sounds like the best way to start would be for you to present your ideas as comments here in this present thread so they can be discussed. What do you find objectionable about the lead as it presently stands in the article, and why, and what would you prefer, and why? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 14:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rev 11
I've copied and pasted below the edit of Phoenix of9, since this seems to have become the de facto revision 11. The associated edit comment reads: "situationally is covered by "behaviour". Pathological models were non existant b4 19th century. Please do no delete and/or's. Orientation def was incomplete" (edit comment of Phoenix of9) --Dhilvert (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Most notably, I think the and/or should go. There comes a point at which additional precision doesn't help the reader, and I think this is one of those times. Also, while situationally might be encompassed within behavior, it is not implied by it, so I think the former should be kept. --Dhilvert (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, "and/or" worsens rather than improving anything. I see additional problems with this proposal, as well. Relative to Rev 10, its wording is awkward and ungrammatical and flows poorly. The newly-proposed text…

…is especially problematic; it undoes a carefully-constructed description of the timeframe in which homosexuality was delisted and decriminalised, and replaces it with the assertion it was delisted from mental disorders list. This is not only ungrammatical, but provides no information regarding timeframe. The following assertion (…)decriminalized in most countries during the second half of 20th century is likewise ungrammatical, and also less historically accurate than the present lead text. India, for example, just decriminalised homosexual behaviour a few weeks ago, well into the 21st century.

As for the proposal to change some homosexual tendency to some homosexual potential, I must disagree with this one, as well. "Homosexual tendency" clearly and accurately describes the phenomenon at hand. "Homosexual potential" seems vague and not readily definable; certainly we haven't defined it here and I don't see an advantage to defining it so as to be able to use it, given that it will still be less precise and less accurate than tendency. Moreover, the phrase homosexual potential could be construed to have negative connotations.—<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * India is not most countries. Most countries mean a numerical majority. As for grammar, you can correct it. However, your version is incorrect as it implies that homosexuality was considered a disease until 20th century. This is incorrect. Disease/mental disorder view started in 19th century, not 1000 BC. Please stop reverting to a faulty lead. "Homosexual tendency" has more negative connotations. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you refer to "my version". What is under discussion is the consensus lead text, developed with the coöperative participation of many editors (including you) over the course of more than a week's discussion. Your position is that the consensus version of the lead is "faulty", but so far you are the only one who seems to think so. That doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but — at least for the moment — it means your position is against consensus. I'm glad you're now discussing the matter here on the talk page, but it's regrettable you continue to insert your preferred text (which at this time has no consensus behind it) in the article lead, topped with belligerent edit summaries and judgements of other editors. That's not helpful behaviour, and it's not in accord with BRDC. On contentious articles like this one especially, we discuss and agree nontrivial changes on the talk page before adding them to the article. Can you see how the way you're doing it is not in line with that practice? Can you see how it could be seen as tendentious? Can you see how it begins to edge towards running afoul of WP:3RR?


 * You're certainly right that India is not most countries. Can you explain the advantage you see in using language that reduces the precision and accuracy of the lead?


 * I think I understand your concern about how the lead presents the chronology of pathological classification of homosexuality. And yes, I've read the article. Here's a problem I see: the article contains the assertion he first attempts to classify homosexuality as a disease were made by the fledgling European sexologist movement in the late 19th century. However, this assertion is wholly unsupported and therefore not presently verifiable. If you or anyone else can provide some reliable sources with which to support the assertion, terrific! If not, then we need to look at rewording or removing the unsupported, questionable assertion. It's important at times like this to keep in mind that the standard for inclusion in a Wikipedia article is not what we know, or think we know—it's what we can prove.


 * That said, I am not in favour of the use of a lengthy quote in the lead. We're writing an encyclopædia here; it's best if we write our own text. The use of a quote in this location doesn't seem, to me, to do a better descriptive or definitive job than the text we, as editors, devised on our own with support from reliable sources. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed regarding the quote; it seems generally awkward. If there is a different way of addressing the concern raised by Phoenix of9 regarding the identity part of the definition, then a change to Rev 10 might be in order, but otherwise the Rev 10 text seems to be better in this area. --Dhilvert (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see that Rev 10 "implies that homosexuality was considered a disease until 20th century". I guess it might be read that way, but it seems to me that would require some serious reading between the lines (i.e., synthesis) on the part of the reader.


 * Suppose we change "homosexual tendency" to simply "homosexuality"? That is admittedly less precise, but it is true that "tendency" has negative connotations. ("Disposition" worked rather well in another place, but we don't want to overuse it.)


 *  Inserted later because I forgot before:  "And/or" is an awkward construction that is frowned upon in most contexts (see WP:MOS and other sources). It may not be avoidable everywhere in the article, but it absolutely should not be in the lede. Rivertorch (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 


 * About India, considering it accounts for about one-sixth of the world's population, I'd say that its attitudes toward homosexuality are highly relevant when writing an article with global scope, like this one. Not sure if India is considered a "developed country" at this point or if that's entirely subjective or what. (My understanding of the recent court decision is will have no immediate effect on the nationwide state of affairs—i.e., homosexuality has not been decriminalized in India—but that it may open the door to national decriminalization in the long run.)


 * Several editors have wondered about the wisdom of rewriting the lede here rather than in article space. It was originally my suggestion, so blame me if you're finding the process cumbersome or confusing. My intention was two-fold: to keep the previous lede (for which there was consensus) of a high-visibility article stable while revisions were made and a new consensus formed, and to minimize the likelihood of highly disruptive edit wars which are likely to form when major changes are made. I agree with Scheinwerfermann that we appeared to have consensus for Rev 10. That doesn't mean that it couldn't or shouldn't be further improved, but I can't help thinking that if the changes had been proposed here first, we all would have had a nice drama-free day. Rivertorch (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the point about stability and edit wars - can I suggest we revert the lead back to prior the revision, work on a new consensus for the revision, and have the problems laid out comprehensively and comprehensibly, and try again? Mish (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see us moving back towards civil, productive discussion—thanks everyone who's pushing things that direction. But I have trouble seeing a return to the pre-rev lead, even temporarily, as a reasonable way to proceed. There's wide agreement that the Rev-10 lead is a substantial, significant improvement over the pre-rev lead's structure, content, and tone. To permit an apparently-lone objector to waltz (sashay? stomp?) in and belligerently quash all our dilligent and remarkably drama-free collaboration does not seem to accord with the spirit of Wikipedia's core consensus doctrine. I would rather see us have the Rev-10 lead in place and work here on the talk page to address whatever its remaining shortcomings might be. Beside the fact it's a better reflection of current consensus, it's clear that the objections raised by phoenix of9 are particular and not systemic in nature. Specifically, the objections are (1) particular word selections, and (2) particulars of phrasing of the history of de/criminalisation of homosexual behaviour. Even if there were consensus that these objections are maximally substantial — which there apparently is not — neither of them is a fatal flaw. We can and should address them here on the talk page to make a good lead even better and its supporting consensus even stronger, but a return to the pre-rev lead is a badly retrograde step out of line with the incremental-improvement nature of the project. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 03:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mish, rather than prior the revision, did you intend the prior revision (i.e., Rev 10)? Otherwise, I'm inclined to agree that moving to a pre-Rev 10 version would be counterproductive.  --Dhilvert (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How does this work?

Mish(talk) 22:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe too much information (or too wordy) for a lead? It's hard to say more without knowing exactly how you want to work this into the text. --Dhilvert (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I answered below. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've boldly changed the current lede to remove and add some links and clean up some redundant language, not sure if i should also update this revision or start a new one or? Among the changes I removed the wikilink crime from "prohibited by law" as it didn't seem to discuss the criminalization of homosexuality at all, perhaps we need an article on the subject that summarizes all the various mentions elsewhere? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   16:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A change: considered to lie within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum should likely change, maybe considered a part of a heterosexual-homosexual continuum? We link to the continuum article but i don't see a need to emphasize it more than that in the lede. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   16:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * lie within seems more idiomatic in context. It would probably be best for the original author of the phrase to comment further, but I suspect the point of the emphasis was to place homosexuality within the context of a spectrum spanning also bisexuality and heterosexuality.  I think this is important to emphasize, and I think the current text does this well.  A different phrasing might be better, but I can't think of one just now.  --Dhilvert (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's an attempt at a revision that makes explicit bisexuality and heterosexuality:
 * Does this make the point of the emphasis clearer? (I actually think the current version is better, but I thought I'd offer an alternative, as it might spark other ideas.)  --Dhilvert (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this make the point of the emphasis clearer? (I actually think the current version is better, but I thought I'd offer an alternative, as it might spark other ideas.)  --Dhilvert (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Rev 12
Considering for the moment only the first paragraph, compared to the current lede, Rev 12: The first two items are, I think, uncontroversial. I think that the third item is the main sticking point right now. The fourth item is related, because if we omit the "situationally" clause then we have to add the phrase "sexual orientation" or we'll be leaving out of the first sentence what many see as the main definition of homosexuality. Rivertorch (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) replaces "romantic or sexual attraction or behavior" with "sexual attraction or sexual behavior"
 * 2) replaces "among members of the same sex" with "between people of the same sex or gender"
 * 3) omits the phrase "situationally or in an enduring disposition" from the first sentence
 * 4) adds the term "sexual orientation" to the first sentence


 * Here's a rather basic replacement from the current lede according to your suggestion:


 * The orientation bit of the text could also be placed at the beginning of the sentence, which might be preferable. --Dhilvert (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The orientation bit of the text could also be placed at the beginning of the sentence, which might be preferable. --Dhilvert (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Incorrect definition for sexual orientation. It isnt "considered to lie" there it simply does. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, then how about:




 * I've reinserted "romantic", since we had consensus for that, and shifted the sexual orientation part to the beginning. I also reinserted "gender", since we also seemed to have consensus for that, but shifted things such as "members" and "people" around a bit; I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about "gender" or "attraction" except in the case of humans, whereas "sex" and "behavior" definitely apply to other animals, too. And I changed "is considered to lie within" to "lies within", as Phoenix suggested, per lack of thorough discussion on that point before and because it reflects mainstream theory. I see at least two possible problems with what I've done: non-human animals probably can't be romantic, and the sentence is too damn long. But perhaps it's two steps forward to one step back, not the reverse. Rivertorch (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. The version I copy pasted includes direct quotes from APA and hence is far better than whatever you 2 suggested. Why do you want to change it? Why is this taking so long? Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There may still be some style issues relative to the current lede. Perhaps someone could get a copy-editor to look at the various proposed revisions to try to come up with something better that addresses the points you've raised.  --Dhilvert (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * “Why is this taking so long?” Phoenix of 9, be patient: From the time you posted your re-write until you asked why it was taking so long, was less than 24 hours! And please, bear with my intellectual slowness but, are the other suggestions proposing to shorten Phoenix of 9’s three-paragraph lead to a two-sentence, one-paragraph lead? Are each of your suggestions meant to be inserted into Phoenix of 9’s proposal, or are they meant to be instead of his proposal? I only ask because I am unsure how one should be reading the Rev 12 discussion, especially if one is trying to work out a compromise edit. Prima facie, I think that Phoenix of 9’s re-write is a good one. Each of the changes enumerated 1 through 4 are positive steps forward. I especially like seeing the elimination of romantic and situationally, the latter of which is a minor aspect of homosexuality at best and, while it is necessary to cover it in the article, need not be emphasized in the introduction. — SpikeToronto (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) My schedule this week has turned out more complicated than I expected, and I regret any delays resulting from my fitful presence. I would point out, however, that many things worth doing don't happen overnight. The move to rewrite the lede began sixteen days ago, and we made enormous progress over most of that time. Sometimes wrapping up loose ends is the hardest part. The devil is in the details.

Spike, I didn't explain properly when I put in the latest quoteboxed revision. Since most of the disputed text seems to be intraparagraphic (if that's not a word, it should be!), I thought it was easier to deal with one paragraph at a time; I didn't intend to deep-six the next two paragraphs, just set them aside for the moment.

At the risk of causing further delay, I need to bow out now for another half day or so. To answer Phoenix's question before I go, I think it's a mistake for several reasons to use multiple, lengthy direct quotes in the lede. (One reason is that it looks lazy on our part not to write the beginnings of our own articles.) I'm also trying to preserve some of the good, consensus-based wording we came up with in the collaborative process that got us this far. Rivertorch (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * SpikeToronto, what I quoted isnt a re-write, its the old lead, the one that was replaced with the unfortunate lead that is currently in the article. So, yes, its taking too long to get rid of this unsourced lead and go back to the old one.


 * Rivertorch, APA is way more qualified than us in defining homosexuality. This is the homosexuality article, therefore the lead deserves "lazy lengthy quotes" (ie: a good definition by a reputable source) Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the quotations are so precise, that one could not conceive of how to paraphrase them without such paraphrase amounting to virtual plagiarism. Also, there is no hard and fast rule at Wikipedia that introductions to articles cannot have quotations in them. Is there? I see introductions with quotations throughout WP. Also, I went looking before making this comment and cannot find an admonition against their use in introductions. We are dealing here with a topic that many conservatives want back in the closet, if not wiped off the map. The weight and gravitas that the APA quotations add to the introduction gives the article — right at the outset — a scientific, authoritative foundation, the existence of which so many homophobes would deny. — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, Phoenix, I'd go along with that, and presumably the APA went to considerable effort to get it 'right', so what makes us think we could do it better? There's often quotes in the lead to show how a term is defined within a WP:RS. Mish (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of doing it better than the APA; it's a question of using original wording rather than allowing the lede to be dominated by quoted material. I know WP isn't just any encyclopedia, and I didn't suggest that there was any policy or guideline against using a direct quote, but I think it's bordering on the bizarre for an encyclopedia to use multiple, lengthy quotes in an article lede. Except perhaps under extraordinary circumstances, the wording in the lede of a major article should be simple, powerful, and fresh—not recycled. That's the way it strikes me, anyway. I do see Spike's point about providing an authoritative foundation from the outset, but I cannot agree that a direct quote from a mainstream scientific organization (you know—those same godless heathens who have the gall to claim dinosaurs didn't coexist with ancient humans) is stronger than a shorter, simpler sentence or two that expresses the same thing but in a more elegant way and is also sourced to the APA.


 * I was under the impression that there was interest from multiple editors in rewriting the lede (an idea I initially opposed, btw), hence this whole exercise. The old lede failed to follow the convention of summarizing the article, and I don't think I was alone in finding its wording clumsy and graceless. In any case, it's beginning to seem that every problem we address merely brings up more. I'm honestly unsure how best to proceed at this point. Rivertorch (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The reality is that overwhelming majority of editors discussing here have agree on the good quote of the most reliable sources available. Furthermore I am still convinced that the following sentences is essential (historically with direct effects and implications on many areas such as parenting, relationships/marriage, stigma; these professional and scientific facts which caused changing views of society as a whole on homosexuals...) at the beginning of the article: Between late 19th century and middle of the 20th century, homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder but due to failure of scientific studies to support this position, it was delisted from mental disorders list. There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. The consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation and that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder. --Destinero (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If the references linked are followed, it can be seen that the quote is from a general definition for sexual orientation. For an article about sexual orientation in general, the quote might be appropriate.  For this article, it places too much emphasis on orientation in the abstract and too little emphasis on homosexuality in particular.  Homosexuality -- as an orientation -- is orientation to one's own sex.  A lede that cannot say this within twenty or so words is a lede that is inappropriate for an article entitled Homosexuality.  --Dhilvert (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Destinero, thats trying too hard as if you are trying to prove something. This is enough: "Homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation, along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum." since it implies homosexuality is on par with bisexuality and heterosexuality (as it is). Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The APA, in its resolution earlier this week, confirmed that it views homosexuality as a normal human sexual variation, and not a mental health issue. Mish (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Phoenix that to make an issue of the former classification of homosexuality as a disease in the introduction is detrimental. Homosexuality simply “is.” It does not need to be defended — in the introduction — against those who would still think it is a disease in need of curing. This is not to say that it should not be discussed, just not highlighted in the introduction to the article. I agree with Destinero that its former treatment as a disease and more recent declassification as such is very important. However, and for that reason, the relationship of the psychology/psychiatric establishment to homosexuality is thoroughly discussed in the article here and elsewhere. — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)