Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 19

Pederasty & Pedagogy in Archaic Greece
I did not add the above-captioned title to the bibliography section of the article. But, having read the following review of it, I cannot quite see why it should not be included, its unfortunate title aside.

So, I am going to put it back in for now. Perhaps the editor who removed it can, after reading the review of it or after reading the book itself, tell is why it is best left off the reading list. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. (I was reverting but you got there first.) Considering the second paragraph of Homosexuality, the book seems quite directly relevant to the content of the article. Rivertorch (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pasting in the full text of the book review. However this article is about homosexuality rather than the history of Greek homosexuality (which is covered in great detail in other articles and is referenced within the article body). Banging on about pederasty seems inappropriate considering the modern English use of the word, which according to the OED is used to describe sex with boys (paedophilia) and in the modern sense only used to describe homosexuality in an offensive way. Rather than insisting on including Dover's 1978 book (which I do have a copy of) as part of the unreferenced floating bibliography, why not refer to more recent text such as Davidson's "The Greeks and Greek Love" from 2007. This benefits from more recent views, sources and language with a modern sensibility of homosexuality. I shall avoid the temptation of cut & pasting lengthy reviews here as I am sure you are capable of looking it up yourself or finding other texts more recently written than 30 years ago.—Ash (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I did not add the above-captioned title to the bibliography section of the article. So, I am not wedded to its being here. My only concern was that it had not been removed solely because of the author’s unfortunate choice of title words. One wonders if Percy is so deeply entrenched in his study of the ancient world that he fails to understand the baggage that a word such as pederasty carries in the modern world. Ash, have you added The Greeks and Greek Love and to the bibliography? It sounds like it would be a fine addition. — SpikeToronto (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Deciding what is "offensive" and what isn't vis-à-vis the titles of scholarly books in the bibliography is probably a futile exercise. Let's not shoot for a sanitized article, just a neutral one without undue weight. Rivertorch (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an issue about the size of the biography already, and this book is tangential to the article title. It might be appropriate in an article on the History of homosexuality, particularly Homosexuality in ancient Greece and definitely in Pederasty in ancient Greece.  In an article about homosexuality, I'd expect to see books about homosexuality that have some contemporary relevance, rather than detailing texts that should be well represented in more appropriate articles already. Mish (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How to limit the size of the Bibliography
At the moment the bibliography is an ever growing list of publications that has no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Consequently any drive-by editor can dump something that mentions homosexuality in the list and other editors would have a hard time justifying removal (n.b. Amazon reveals 6,167 books with "homosexuality" in the title). Normally one would expect some of the footnotes to cross-reference publications in the bibliography (using Chicago style references). I suggest that the bibliography is reviewed to ensure such cross-references exist for the most useful and meaningful publications and where such cross-references are not useful such publications should be pruned from the bibliography. As a comparison, Gay bathhouse has successfully adopted this method and was later classified as GA-class.

If someone has a better way of defining inclusion criteria I'd welcome its discussion here as a way forward.—Ash (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The methodology you're suggesting seems completely reasonable. I can imagine the occasional exception, but I think it would work. Rivertorch (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As an example, I've formatted "(Bagemihl, 1999)" in this style and added the book ref to the bibliography rather than buried solely in the references section.—Ash (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with having added the reference (Bagemihl, 1999) as you have done is that, while it is an acceptable method under WP:CITE, it violates Wikipedia’s consistency requirement. If you want that to be the referencing method for this article, than you must change every reference in the article to that style. Also remember that “Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another, unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style.” [Emphasis added.] (WP:CITE) Simply put, the article can have only one citation method. There was a huge row over at another article with different wikieditors following differing referencing systems that eventually resulted in certain wikieditors being banned from editing the article in question.  This is serious business. So, my point is this: Whatever consensus method is chosen, the entire article has to be done in that method.  Be sure you have consensus first to change it and — again — remember Wikipedia’s admonition: “Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another, unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style.”  [Emphasis added.] (WP:CITE) — SpikeToronto (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. It should be noted that adopting this style does not mean that all References need changes. Here's a brief summary:
 * References not duplicated in the Bibliography can stay as they are, only publications appearing in both sections would need the References entry changing to Chicago style. I just took five random examples of books in the References section and none was duplicated in the Bibliography, so consistency may not be much of an issue here.
 * Bibliography entries could still exist without being mentioned in the References (if there were a consensus on why this was a good thing).
 * Several References (footnotes) could point to the same Bibliography entry. For example "(Bagemihl, 1999), pages 122-123" and "(Bagemihl, 1999), page 43 provides evidence for primates" are two different References to the same publication.
 * Integrating Bibliography entries into the text by adding them as References is not a consistency problem and this can be a gradual process.—Ash (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ash, you may want to take a look at the way footnotes/references are formatted in the The Murder of Roger Ackroyd article. They are done in this format: "" This has the effect of creating the cross-reference to the bibliography as well as permitting specific page number references. I do not know who originally set the article up that way, but it has been fairly consistently followed. — SpikeToronto (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd checked it out but I'm not sure I understand the benefit of doing it this way (the links didn't seem to go anywhere). It may cause a bit of a maintenance headache this way while looking up the author's surname manually in the alphabetic bibliography is fairly standard.—Ash (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The guidance is that referencing style can be article dependent, but consistent within the article. So, you need to either revert and ensure all refs are in the existing format, of if you have consensus to change via this talk page, then you are going to have to reformat all the references to follow the same standard. Mish (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mish, you nutshelled it better than I had. On a similar note and regarding a comment that, I believe, Ash made earlier: Perhaps there is room to prune the bibliography. It occurred to me that having a bunch of works in the bibliography that are not actually used in the wikiarticle amounts to what the legal world calls “evidence bolstering,” wherein a witness provides testimony that adds nothing and merely repeats that which has already been admitted into evidence in an attempt to make one’s case appear stronger: It’s not allowed. Coming back from my digression, here’s my point: Seldom does a book or article have in its bibliography works that are not used in the preparation of the book/article in hand. Here, it’s as if were saying being homo must be acceptable, look at how much has been published on it! It’s nonstandard and should be avoided here since it looks as if we are trying to use volume to justify our being. I believe that, earlier, Ash had suggested trimming from the bibliography those works not cited in the wikiarticle. At the time, I was uncertain. Now I agree with him wholeheartedly! — SpikeToronto (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Well, I just discussed this with my mucho better half and he reminded me that it is acceptable in scholarly works that are not intended to be exhaustive to list in a further reading section articles/books/monographs not cited/paraphrased/referred to in the text of the article in hand. — SpikeToronto (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the references and changed those both used as a reference and in the bibliography section to Chicago style. Consequently the article should now be consistent; unfortunately there are now just 3 such examples. I may have missed a couple but it looks as if the vast majority of titles listed in the bibliography are not used in the text. This rather supports my original point that there is no criteria for inclusion or exclusion - it is a bit of a dumping ground for titles that some readers think important but that editors don't find useful enough to actually use as reference material for the article. In particular the rationale for an "online articles" subsection of the bibliography is probably fairly weak as it is in danger of becoming a secret extra External Links section that may escape the guidance of WP:ELNO. One potential solution may be to create a List of books about homosexuality (now created based on the bibliography) and move unused Bibliography there, in similar way to List of important publications in physics.—Ash (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Anchors to books
For the 3 references appearing in the bibliography I have added cross-references following the Wikipedia accepted guidance.

To take one example of the reference to Foucault, this is done by changing the text of the first reference to a link -
 * becomes

and book citation in the Bibliography is changed to using the citation tag rather than cite book.

The end result is that clicking on the reference in the text takes you to the footnote and clicking on the Chicago style footnote takes you to the detailed bibliography citation.—Speedoguy (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead
Its been a long time, I was out of the country. So are we gonna change the lead?? Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that happened weeks ago. Zazaban (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite agenda
Is it about time to rewrite this article to conform to MOS and concentrate on accuracy, neutrality, comprehensiveness, and the best quality sources? Is it possible in an article of such controversy? I tend to hope a rewrite can be accomplished without the fuss of ArbCom, possibly as a model for Wikipedians working together from vastly different approaches.

I have been approached to rewrite the article by myself, but I do not wish to do that. I already wrote the Lesbian article and several other high-profile LGBT articles. I do not wish to write the core article on LGBT issues using my perceptions of what should be in this one. Wikipedia is a community effort, and there is no reason why this article cannot be constructed by many of us with the same goals in mind.

Goals

 * 1) The article should be rewritten to adhere to the highest standards on Wikipedia, and only editors who are interested in that goal should participate.
 * 2) Every part of this article should be written originally, borrowing from no other existing sources or Wikipedia articles regardless if they are in the public domain. It may, however, be able to add content to spinoff articles and summarize such content in this one.
 * 3) Only the absolute best, most authoritative sources should be used in the article's construction. Scientific, medical, social, and psychology journals and textbooks should be used to address issues within their subject realm. The absolute best sources for religious views should be used: ones that are used in seminaries and such. I am suggesting a primary dependence on print sources, and web-based sources for recent opinions or statistics when necessary.
 * 4) The MOS is sorely abused in this article and the construction should include consistency of punctuation, grammar, and citation style.
 * 5) The article should present one coherent flow of thought and concept.

Agenda

 * Find editors willing to work on this project together instead of individually.
 * Editors will identify themselves as content editors, copy editors, or editors with a focus in another capacity, such as dispute resolution.
 * Determine the outline of the article based on the weight of sources, and settle on an order for sections.
 * Two or three content editors should agree to work on one section. They should be responsible for the sources and writing for that section and spend a month working on its construction in a sandbox off of a user's page, linked to this one. Both or all editors working on a section should ideally have access to the same sources, and if that is not possible, communicate as clearly and simply as possible about what the sources say. Other editors should assist in making suggestions about sources and writing by visiting others' sandboxes and giving valid, helpful criticism.
 * After a month (two if necessary) of working on a section, the section will be pasted in article space. Two editors who have volunteered as copy editors will comb through the article to remove issues of redundancy and ensure the article flows well. One editor with some expertise in images, licensing, and such should check all images, and add or remove where necessary.
 * The last part of the article to be written should be the lead.

Editors willing to work on this
Can we get 20 to 25 editors who have access to good libraries who are willing to spend a month writing a section or two? Our sexual orientations or religious views are irrelevant. We should simply have the goals of writing a very good article in mind, be able to work well with other editors, and see the value in producing an excellent article. If we're lucky, we'll learn a lot about the subject, working together, and ourselves in the process.


 * Content editors should own books or have access to excellent libraries. Some participants may be able to send others articles through email, but content editors should be able to access the most important print sources by themselves. Content editors will be expected to supply source citations down to the page number.
 * Copy editors should have a college-level command of English and a familiarity with the MOS. Experience reviewing articles for GA or FA is preferable.
 * Others: I can see the usefulness in an image reviewer to ensure all images in the article are consistent and correctly licensed. I think we will inevitably need someone with experience in dispute resolution who can step in where arguments erupt to listen to both sides and form compromises. We may possibly need someone with admin capabilities.


 * 1) I have access to an excellent library and I am able to write one section with another user. I would rather not however, for my aforementioned reasons, and would instead like to assist other Wikipedians in constructing this one as a project organizer. --Moni3 (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Reporting for duty, per my comment at WT:LGBT. Willing to help coordinate, find sources, and write brilliant prose. Also have DR experience through MedCab. The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 21:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) After Wednesday, I will have a hella of a more time on my hands due to the completion of a major project. however, I am a lousy writer :-(, I am however a pretty good researcher :-), so if people want to tap me up to find sources for sections, I'll be happy to act as a research assistant or provide feedback and copy-editing of sections. I have access to a wide range academic databases via my university work so can also assist in that way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I also have university library access, so can source and write some parts. I don't write much on the core LGBT topics (preferring less angsty comics and science fiction :-)), but i'm willing to donate time and effort to finally sort this artice out section by section. Willing to contribute to any section i'm assigned: I'm a scientist, so i'm not phased by science or medical lit, and can help out on summarising any "Homos in arts/fiction/mythology" sections, as that's where i focus my wiki-work. Yob  Mod  11:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Happy to contribute a reasonable amount of time. I've a large collection of relevant books, relevant experience as a major contributor to gay bathhouse, have academic on-line access so can check journals and newspapers and fairly well wiki-markup minded (in fact I've just been fiddling with a Greasemonkey handy dandy citation script ). As previously discussed, I'll be happy to see unused or tangential sources trimmed back and make the bibliography a set of used sources rather than a wish list.—Ash (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) I can copy-edit. --Alynna (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Next steps
Once editors who are interested have signed up, we will determine what the next steps should be. If less than 10 editors indicate interest, over the next 2 weeks, I suppose we will have to see if we can work on this or scrap the idea.
 * Suggestions: 1) Can we get this to be the focus of a (hopefully soon coming?) LGBT newsletter? Or just use the project member list for a more penetrative advert? or even add something to the project banner for a short time, like other projects have done for elections etc? I would expect a large attrition rate of volunteers, so the more the better Yob  Mod  11:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The status of the newsletter is unknown. I left WP:LGBT in late June so I will no longer be responsible for it. However, anyone may pick it up I suppose. I have left messages at WT:LGBT, WP:Sociology, and WP:Sexuality. Any other attempts to advertise this are welcome. Whatever you can think of, I guess. --Moni3 (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm wrong, but a listing in any kind of magazine pertaining to those who feel strongly on either side of the various arguments will only attract a lot of vandals, as well as more POV edits, and if enough of either side are drawn to the article, it would only be a matter of time before more subtle POV statements slipped through. 72.191.116.59 (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The LGBT newsletter (the newsletter of WikiProject LGBT studies) is sent to a bunch of people interested in LGBT topics. Homosexuality is kind of the ultimate LGBT topic, so it's the perfect group to ask for help.  It's not a canvassing effort, but an attempt to draw in people who have already expressed interest in contributing on related topics. --Alynna (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing things I was actually looking for more info on in the article...
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any mention in the article about how people who come out later in life were often sexually abused as children (I think it's more common with boys than girls - but I could be mistaken about that). Anyway, I was really hoping to find more info on this here. Also the issue of... Hmm... (OK, I don't know the term for, so bear with me) A good example of what I'm trying to describe is how people were outraged that that one girl on the miss America pageant expressed that she was personally opposed to same-sex marriage, and a lot of people were mad because it was something she wasn't supposed to say (since she was "supposed" to say she was either neutral or pro-same-sex marriage - since she was being asked by a gay guy). (Maybe that helped?) The occasional tendency for, if someone in the media says they don't support same-sex marriage tends to lead to a media outbreak of accusations of said person being homophobic. Hope that made sense. Sorry I don't know the term for it. Oh, another example of this is that one Sienfield episode which had something to do with Jerry or someone being accused of being gay, and how, at the end of every sentence which he or someone else denied being gay themselves, the characters would throw in the disclaimer "...not that there's anything wrong with that/it". 72.191.116.59 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding abuse: Sources would be needed to add such information, and would have to come from very good studies (not journalists etc). I can just as easily claim that gay people are more used to stigma than straight people, therefore more likely to admit to being abused, but that the frequency of abuse is the same. Without studies, there is no way to know which is true. Yob  Mod  15:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving therapy stuff from fluidity of sexual orientation section down to Psychology section
A lot of the stuff in the Fluidity section just repeats what is in the Psychology section. I think it is repetitive and undue weight to talk about homosexuality as a mental illness in two places. There is a complete difference between naturally developing your sexual orientation and aggressive therapy aimed at altering your sexual orientation. I think the stuff about therapy should go down in the the part about psychology and leave the fluidity section to just talk about the more natural progression of sexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Mish (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This was reverted with the explanation "Inaccurate, change implies sexual orientation is only psychological." I do not think they understand the edit.  The section is on psychological efforts to change sexual orientation.  It is the efforts that are psychological, not the sexual orientation. I personally think it would make the most sense to be able to discuss this along with the discussion about why homosexuality is not a mental illness. The two topics refer to each other.  I am willing to discuss this however.  My main point is that naturally developing your sexual orientation and aggressive therapy aimed at altering your sexual orientation are two completely different things and should be treated separately. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You limit the subject of "Sexual orientation change efforts" to "psychological efforts", some may understand that topic includes the use of psychiatric measures (like medicines), hormonal therapy, religion, pornography, family counseling ... --Nutriveg (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My main objective is to separate statements about aggressive treatment to change sexual orientation from the natural fluidity of sexual orientation. Would you be okay if I separated out sexual orientation change efforts, but kept it in the Sexual orientation, identity, behavior section? Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be OK for me, although still incomplete but I don't feel able to complete it anyway.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fluidity should be separate from attempts to change, but as discussed, not all attempts to change have been purely psychological (although often overseen by psychs). Mish (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not making this post arbitruaily, but I remember an experiment where straight males, these studies are always done with males, anyway,"straight" heterosexual males were taken into a room & shown pornography, homosexual pornography & reports were made on how they sexually reacted. . . No, I'm not making this up originally. More importantly, the Male Homosexual pornography DID stimulate for lack of a better word some males, but they tended to be the more homophobic ones. The more likely pro-gay males were less likely to become aroused. I want to know what source, legitimate, I beleive Psychology Today but my Memory is off! I mention this at all because I think it good possible inclusion to whether homosexuality is "nature or nurture." ````turnagealfonso —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnagealfonsojermaine (talk • contribs) 04:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I know this much more clearly, there is evident that sexuality can be changed IN those that maintain a lifestyle close to the anti-gay/lesbain group that sponsored the process, like the New president of H. . . Anonymous maintaining his straightness. For people that don't want to live the lives of posterchildren they don't change even with help very often. Sorry I saw that on ABD local. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnagealfonsojermaine (talk • contribs) 04:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool so why don't you try to change your, or anyone for that matter, sexuality to homosexual from heterosexual? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.35.98 (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Safer sex boxes
These appear under Homosexuality. Was there a consensus to include these boxes? I only find a brief mention in the talk archives. The appear highly intrusive on the layout and I would suggest that as they are somewhat tangential to the topic, they infringe on the guidance of WP:NOTMANUAL. In particular there is a lot of safe sex advice that these boxes do not give, such as the possible risks of swallowing semen or whether to brush your teeth before or after sex... making them rather debatable and a link to Safe sex a better option rather than attempting to paraphrase in a notice.—Ash (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree that they are spurious; I do not recall when they were added. They are tangential at best to the topic. I would have no problem if they are removed. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Something may have been lost in archiving or there could be a discussion buried within an unrelated or mislabeled section. I do seem to recall a bit of discussion at the time, so I'd suggest at least giving it another day or so and see if anyone objects. (I've been conflicted about the boxes since day one. Their content is important and, I think, encyclopedic and, on my browser, they actually look rather good. On the other hand, they're really not about homosexuality at all; they're about human sexual behavior and apply across sexual orientation lines.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the safer sex box to the Lesbian article, I think preceding the boxes being added to this one. I'm not sure because I don't follow this article as closely. I'm on the fence about it adhering to the NOTMANUAL guideline. It is relevant, at least in the Lesbian article, to the section, which includes a discussion about how sexually transmitted diseases are spread between women. I think it deserves more discussion instead of leaving the action of removing it to someone unaffiliated with the issues in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd rather keep them or even combine them but they are included in the main articles for those sections so in theory can be seen as unneeded; part of the concern was the actual information presented is done so more compactly so may serve our readers but if the information is seen as simply not needed on this article it's hard to justify the content in any form. The issue seems to be the general disdain for anything about gay male sexuality vs the sexuality of women in any form. I'd rather stick with whatever serves our readers best. -- Banj e  b oi   19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So far it sounds like there isn't a contentious debate here. I suspect that the casual reader who would find the information relevant is more likely to search for rather more sexual terms like butt fucking or cum. I agree that there's no rush to remove, but as this is a rather long article, pointing out to a more relevant page about gay safe sex seems to be the way to go. If it worries folks that the safe sex message is available on these pages then a link on sexual orientation which appears at the top of the page may be more effective.—Ash (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That content is same-sex specific and is only addressed on the two main articles listed at the top of the health section. Most articles about, for instance, anal sex or safe sex correctly just speak to the act rather than sexualities involved. I can see it going or staying; maybe combining them would make sense? -- Banj e  b oi   19:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pediatric Neuroendocrinology: Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation
I find essential the following study and it's conclusion to be mentioned in the article: "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=262525 --Destinero (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Essential"? Hmm. That a study concluded this could probably be summarized in one sentence—perhaps a slightly rewritten version of the italicized sentence above. Whether it should be is something else again, and I'm not sure. I would just note there are many studies, some with conflicting conclusions, and this article cannot contain them all. (Biology and sexual orientation and Environment and sexual orientation are better places to discuss the topic at any length.) If the study in question is especially notable in some way or epitomizes current mainstream scientific thought, then maybe it should be mentioned here. And let's be careful about what the abstract says: "no indication" that something "has an effect" is not the same thing as positive indication that it doesn't have an effect. Rivertorch (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to see another recent studies with conflicting conclusion. If there is none, then this should be presented as up-to-date state of issue. The important implication is that sexuality and sexual orientation and gender identity are not questions of choice (or parental/social influences/experiences) but matters of biology and hormones and circumstances in the fetal environment. This undermines notions of religional/conservative fundamentalist propaganda. Thus, very important issue deserving one or two summarized sentences in the Homosexuality article. --Destinero (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying and basically agree, but that's my personal opinion and involves inferences that we cannot present in the article. Ideally, a reliable secondary source will come along and present the inferences for us. I think it's important not to go beyond what the study actually says, and I reiterate that the conclusions you're claiming are not supported by the wording of the abstract. At the very least, it would require reading the study itself to be sure of what that final sentence means. But if this very new study says what you think it does, and it does reflect consensus among mainstream medical researchers, it should be possible to find a secondary source confirming all of that. Consensus may not extend to other fields, such as genetics and psychology, so it would still be important not to overstate it. Would you like to propose some wording here? Rivertorch (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * English is not my first language and that is why I will welcome help with suitable wording. I underestand the preferenec secondary sources where possible and if you see my contributions I edit with utmost compliance with that so far, but this is issue where I believe is suitable to present relevant parts of abstracts of the study and present it like that to the readers. --Destinero (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Well, I'm not inclined to propose wording, since I'm unsure whether it merits mention in this article right now. (I'd say it definitely should be mentioned in Biology and sexual orientation and Environment and sexual orientation. Those aren't on my watchlist, but if I get a chance I'll wander over that way in the next few days. My time is very limited at the moment.) Let's see what others think. Rivertorch (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that the article Pediatric Neuroendocrinology is essential or even appropriate to this article. According to Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) we should use reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The Pediatric Neuroendocrinology article is not a review. And I want to echo Rivertorch:And let's be careful about what the abstract says: "no indication" that something "has an effect" is not the same thing as positive indication that it doesn't have an effect.'' --Dr.enh (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb." is pretty clear statement here. But I agree that we should rather wait to let credible reviews appear. --Destinero (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Male homosexuality
I don't know if this is the right place to discuss it, but I cant' think of anywhere else to do it. I know people will probably reply me that since most of the LGBT culture and movement seems to be led by gay men, an article exclusively about them (like the one about lesbian women) would be unnecessary. But I think (and thus I understand it's my point of view, which makes it questionable) that we're reinforcing the idea that male same-sex attraction is standard homosexuality while lesbians are a special group. Does it make any sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RamonGuedes (talk • contribs) 05:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems like a good idea to write a gay man article to parallel lesbian. If anyone has the time. --Alynna (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That does indeed seem like a good idea for an article. If nobody objects, i'm going to start looking through my sources. The Wordsmith Communicate 07:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The distinction is that lesbians have a separate identity from gay men. They furthermore have historically been property, so expression of female sexuality has revolved around the needs and desires of men. I don't think parallel issues can be addressed, but for sure identity in gay men should have an article, either here in homosexuality--with a companion section for lesbian identity--or in gay man. In fact, I would suggest renaming the article to gay male identity. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Has there been any research into any link between homosexuality and pedaphilia? This should have been investigated, since anecdotal reports suggest that the majority of male pedophiles favour boys, and would therefore have to be classified as homosexual.JohnC (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but anecdotal isn't good enough. Its junk science. Show me a study that demonstrates a connection, and it can go in. Also, it is patently false that most paedophiles are homosexual. Most of them are men that identify as heterosexual, and married in many cases. For many, its more about power than sex. The Wordsmith Communicate 07:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the numbers of underage females verse males who've been preyed upon by males you'll notice that females are a larger group anyway.Kairos (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Results of work in this area reveal that the great majority of adults who perpetrate sexual abuse are male; sexual abuse of children by adult women is extremely rare (Finkelhor & Russell, 1984; Jones & McFarlane, 1980; Sarafino, 1979). Moreover, the overwhelming majority of child sexual abuse cases involve an adult male abusing a young female (Jenny, Roesler, & Poyer, 1994; Jones & McFarlane, 1980). Available evidence reveals that gay men are no more likely than heterosexual men to perpetrate child sexual abuse (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978; Jenny et al., 1994; Sarafino, 1979)." http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf
 * "Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44. Objective: To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children. Design: Chart review of medical records of children evaluated for sexual abuse. Setting: Child sexual abuse clinic at a regional children's hospital. Patients: Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys) referred to a subspecialty clinic for the evaluation of suspected child sexual abuse. Mean age was 6.1 years (range, 7 months to 17 yrs.). Data collected. Charts were reviewed to determine the relationships of the children to the alleged offender, the sex of the offender, and whether or not the alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Results: Abuse was ruled out in 35 cases. Seventy-four children were allegedly abused by other children and teenagers less than 18 years old. In nine cases, an offender could not be identified. In the remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian. In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community. Conclusions: The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people." http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf
 * Sexual orientation does not affect the likelihood that people will abuse children (http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf):
 * Bellamy, C. (In press). A national study of male involvement among families in contact with the child welfare system. Child Maltreatment, 14.
 * Belsky, J. (1993). Etiology of child maltreatment: A developmental-ecological analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 413-434.
 * Berger, L. M., Paxson, C., & Waldfogel, J. (In press). Mothers, men, and child protective services involvement. Child Maltreatment, 14.
 * Brown, J., Cohen, P., Johnson, J.G., & Salzinger, S. (1998). A longitudinal analysis of risk factors for child maltreatment: Findings of a 17-year prospective study of officially recorded and self-reported child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 1065-1078.
 * Cawson, P., Wattam, C., Brooker, S., & Kelly, G. (2000). Child maltreatment in the United Kingdom. London: NSPCC.
 * Chand, A. & Thoburn, J. (2006). Research review: Child protection referrals and minority ethnic children and families. Child and Family Social Work, 11, 368-377.
 * Child Welfare Information Gateway (2004). Risk and protective factors for child abuse and neglect. The Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.
 * Coulton, C.J., Crampton, D.S., Irwin, M., Spilsbury, J.C. & Korbin, J.E. (2007). How neighborhoods influence child maltreatment: A review of the literature and alternative pathways. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 1117-1142.
 * Coulton, C.J., Korbin, J.E., & Su, M. (1999). Neighborhoods and child maltreatment: A multi-level study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 11, 1019-1040.
 * Coulton, C.J., Korbin, J.E., Su, M., & Chow, J. (1995). Community level factors and child maltreatment rates. Child Development, 66, 1262-1276.
 * Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H., & Hamby, S.L. (2005). The victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreatment, 10, 5-25.
 * Freisthler, B., Merritt, D.H., & LaScala, E.A. (2006). Understanding the ecology of child maltreatment: a review of the literature and directions for future research. Child Maltreatment, 11, 263-280.
 * Garbarino, J. & Crouter, A. (1978). Defining the community context for parent-child relations: The correlates of child maltreatment. Child Development, 49, 604-616.
 * Garbarino, J., & Sherman, D. (1980). High-risk neighborhoods and high-risk families: The human ecology of child maltreatment. Child Development, 51, 188-198.
 * Guterman, N. B., Lee, Y., Lee, S. J. Waldfogel, J., & Rathouz, P. J. (In press). Fathers and maternal risk for physical child abuse. Child Maltreatment, 14.
 * Hussey, J.M., Chang, J.J., & Kotch, J.B. (2006). Child maltreatment in the United States: Prevalence, risk factors, and adolescent health consequences. Pediatrics, 118, 933-942.
 * Korbin, J.E., Coulton, C.J., Chard, S., Platt-Houston and Su, M. (1998). Impoverishment and child maltreatment in African American and European American neighborhoods. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 215-233.
 * Molnar, B. E., Buka, S. L., Brennan, R. T., Holton, J. K., & Earls, F. (2003). A multilevel study of neighborhoods and parent-to-child physical aggression: Results from the project on human development in Chicago neighborhoods. Child Maltreatment, 8, 84-97.
 * Salisbury, E., Henning, K., & Holdford, R. (In press). Fathering by partner-abusive men: Attitudes on children’s exposure to interparental conflict and risk factors for child abuse. Child Maltreatment, 14(3).
 * Scher, C.D., Forde, D.R., McQuaid, J.R., & Stein, M.B. (2004). Prevalence and demographic correlates of childhood maltreatment in an adult community sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 167-180.
 * Sedlak, A.J. & Broadhurst, D.D. (1996). The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.
 * Sedlak, A.J. (2001). A history of the National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. The Children’s Bureau, Administration of Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. Viewed online at the NIS-4 website May 21, 2009: https://www.nis4.org/NIS_History.pdf.
 * Sidebotham, P.D., & ALSPAC Study Team. (2001). Child maltreatment in the “Children of the nineties”: A longitudinal study of parental risk factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 1177-1200.
 * Sidebotham, P.D., Heron, J., Golding, J., & ALSPAC Study Team. (2002). Child maltreatment in the “Children of the nineties”: Deprivation, class and social networks in a UK sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 1243-1259.
 * Vogeltanz, N.D., Wilsnack, S.C., Harris, T.R., Wilsnack, R.W., Wonderlich, S.A., & Kristjanson, A.F. (1999). Prevalence and risk factors for childhood sexual abuse in women: National survey findings. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 579-592.
 * Wu, S.S., Ma, C., Carter, R.L., Ariet, M., Feaver, E.A., Resnick, M.B., & Roth, J. (2004). Risk factors for infant maltreatment: a population-based study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 1253-1264.
 * Thus, I believe that factual statement "Sexual orientation does not affect the likelihood that people will abuse children" with references (http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf; http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf) should and deserve to be presented in the article to stop spreading anecdotal reports and prejudice of ultraconservative activism. --Destinero (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another reference to add: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html --Destinero (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems like it has enough sources for a well-referenced paragraph in the article. The Wordsmith Communicate 18:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will you help? English is not my first language. But maybe this paragraph is sufficient: Homosexuality --Destinero (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How is this at GAN?
It should be quick-failed for cite and other tags. --Moni3 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we should improve it than wait for ages. --Destinero (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reconcile the cleanup banners immediately. These are the quick fail criteria. Anyone who comes by the GAN list to see this article and sees the banners and fact tags can de-list it without a review.


 * I'm very surprised you nominated this article. I do not think it's ready. Just in formatting alone this will take a lot of work. All the citations need to be consistent and they need to match the sources. For instance, I saw that Lilian Faderman's book Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers is listed as a source. But a quick search of the citations indicates it is not cited. If that's the case, it should be removed. So should all other sources listed that are not cited.
 * All the 1 or 2 sentence stand-alone paragraphs need to be joined as cohesive thoughts and paragraphs.
 * There is simply no excuse to cite a statement 11 times, like this one: In the modern West, major studies indicate a prevalence of 2% to 13% of the population. Use a footnote system.
 * Blockquotes per WP:MOSQUOTE should be four lines or more. Cquotes should not be used, only blockquotes. The massive APA quote in the Sexual orientation, identity, behavior section may border on unnecessary copying and copyright violation.


 * I have stated for a while this article will take a lot of work, and I do not think it can be done by one person. Sorry for being a downer here, but...I'm very surprised...--Moni3 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting comment about citations. I created List of books about homosexuality at the time we had an extended discussion about including un-cited material. I was keen to remove them and leave it to a separate list but the consensus appeared to want to keep the extended Bibliography section.—Ash (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Misleading Openers
The opening paragraph has this misleading sentence: "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.[16] " Later on in the article it is stated that this study was just for New Zealand, but its place in the opening paragraph makes it seem as if it's 20% of the WORLD population. Can someone please edit this for more clarity? (the page is locked) 24.176.208.137 (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what your saying, but the C reference that it links to when it says NZ, I'm not sure if it is saying the study was done in NZ or it just includes NZ, so I'm hesitant to change it, maybe someone else can clarify? C T J F 8 3  chat 02:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite agenda 2
I'll copy&paste User:Moni3's post:  Phoenix of9  21:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it about time to rewrite this article to conform to MOS and concentrate on accuracy, neutrality, comprehensiveness, and the best quality sources? Is it possible in an article of such controversy? I tend to hope a rewrite can be accomplished without the fuss of ArbCom, possibly as a model for Wikipedians working together from vastly different approaches.

I have been approached to rewrite the article by myself, but I do not wish to do that. I already wrote the Lesbian article and several other high-profile LGBT articles. I do not wish to write the core article on LGBT issues using my perceptions of what should be in this one. Wikipedia is a community effort, and there is no reason why this article cannot be constructed by many of us with the same goals in mind.

Goals

 * 1) The article should be rewritten to adhere to the highest standards on Wikipedia, and only editors who are interested in that goal should participate.
 * 2) Every part of this article should be written originally, borrowing from no other existing sources or Wikipedia articles regardless if they are in the public domain. It may, however, be able to add content to spinoff articles and summarize such content in this one.
 * 3) Only the absolute best, most authoritative sources should be used in the article's construction. Scientific, medical, social, and psychology journals and textbooks should be used to address issues within their subject realm. The absolute best sources for religious views should be used: ones that are used in seminaries and such. I am suggesting a primary dependence on print sources, and web-based sources for recent opinions or statistics when necessary.
 * 4) The MOS is sorely abused in this article and the construction should include consistency of punctuation, grammar, and citation style.
 * 5) The article should present one coherent flow of thought and concept.

Agenda

 * Find editors willing to work on this project together instead of individually.
 * Editors will identify themselves as content editors, copy editors, or editors with a focus in another capacity, such as dispute resolution.
 * Determine the outline of the article based on the weight of sources, and settle on an order for sections.
 * Two or three content editors should agree to work on one section. They should be responsible for the sources and writing for that section and spend a month working on its construction in a sandbox off of a user's page, linked to this one. Both or all editors working on a section should ideally have access to the same sources, and if that is not possible, communicate as clearly and simply as possible about what the sources say. Other editors should assist in making suggestions about sources and writing by visiting others' sandboxes and giving valid, helpful criticism.
 * After a month (two if necessary) of working on a section, the section will be pasted in article space. Two editors who have volunteered as copy editors will comb through the article to remove issues of redundancy and ensure the article flows well. One editor with some expertise in images, licensing, and such should check all images, and add or remove where necessary.
 * The last part of the article to be written should be the lead.

Editors willing to work on this

 * I could work on either content or copy editing....I guess wherever I'm more needed. C T J F 8 3  chat 21:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Content and research here...  Phoenix of9  22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll copy-edit. --Alynna (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll help with research and sources connected with (mental) health, relationships, child development or parenting. --195.113.155.3 (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC) signature: --Destinero (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could do some copy editing and source checking. I have college access to on-line journals and newspapers. Ash (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's been a week and a half now, are we a go on this with 6 users? C T J F 8 3  chat 19:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

'Homosexual' as pejorative
The last half of the last paragraph of the "etymology and usage" section discusses pejorative terms for gay people. I think it should be noted that "homosexual," the term discussed in this article, also carries a significant negative connotation that is documented by a recent CBS News poll, which shows that support for gay rights drops considerably simply when "gay" is replaced with "homosexual." (Also, perhaps these pejorative terms should become a separate paragraph.) 67.100.222.184 (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cite farm in the lede
Why do we have to have all those citations, can we move them into the body of the article and just keep one or two strong ones in the lede? Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to per WP:LEADCITE, I'm sure it will be one of the things we fix if we ever start working on the clean up of this article. C T J F 8 3  chat 07:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, I am going to look at it tomorrow, I am a bit busy tonight and they are all named citations so the remains will need repairing, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for your assistance. C T J F 8 3  chat 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Those multitude of sites can be bundled into one ref, if they are only used on that sentence. If not simply bundle all that are. -- Banj e  b oi   08:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am an inexperienced bundeler of citations, I am of the school that opines that this wikipedia is not a link station and prefer to link and cite as few citation as are required to simply cover the content. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sentence Fix
editsemiprotected This line, appearing in the last intro paragraph, is misleading. "....There is no scientific evidence that parenting, sexual abuse, other adverse life events, or early childhood experiences influence sexual orientation.[20][21] Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice.[22]"

The last sentence quoted grammatically negates the sentences before it - marking them all as assumptions, proven false. As well, the sentence follows other statements, including "most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice".

This way, the line in question also 'negates' that statement, making it appear that homosexuality is A choice. Either the line needs to be edited out, or the rest of the sentence re-written to work with that staement.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.181.136.121 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 10 March 2010


 * An interesting point. I've used a semicolon to join the two sentences together. Does that resolve things more or less amicably? (leaving request in place for more eyes) – Luna Santin  (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the semicolon is sufficient to clarify. Requesting IP user, thanks for noticing the issue. Luna Santin, nice job. Leaving request for one more check.  Chzz  ►  14:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The amendment looks fine, SpitfireTally-ho! 14:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
This article seems to be in the "nature" camp, instead of having a WP:Neutral Point of View .22:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral point of view does not require that every idea be given equal weight: see WP:GEVAL. The scientific consensus is that homosexuality is an inherent aspect of one's personal nature and that there is little, if any, "nurture" involved. That is therefore the position that article takes. If you do not agree, then please bring yourverifiable reliable sources to the talk page for discussion about their merits for inclusion. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Typical. There is no 'scientific consensus' that homosexuality is an 'inherent aspect of one's personal nature': this is a highly political viewpoint and completely biased. This position is pure 'biological determinism': for example, consider the notion that crime or aggression are inherent traits of certain individuals, or races and little, if any, "nurture" involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.9.194 (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the

individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is always defined in relational terms and necessarily involves relationships with other individuals. Sexual acts and romantic attractions are categorized as homosexual or heterosexual according to the biological sex of the individuals involved in them, relative to each other. Indeed, it is by acting -- or desiring to act -- with another person that individuals express their heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. This includes actions as simple as holding hands with or kissing another person. Thus, sexual orientation is integrally linked to the intimate personal relationships that human beings form with others to meet their deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behavior, these bonds encompass nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Consequently, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic that can be defined in isolation. Rather, one’s sexual orientation defines the universe of persons with whom one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling relationships that, for many individuals, comprise an essential component of personal identity." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-herek.pdf
 * "Proponents’ assertion that sexual orientation is distinct from race in that it is fluid and can be changed is contrary to the weight of the evidence, as explained by Dr. Herek, Dr. Meyer, and various professional organizations." http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Plaintiffs-Amended-PFFs-annotated-version.pdf
 * Thus, your assertion "There is no 'scientific consensus' that homosexuality is an 'inherent aspect of one's personal nature': this is a highly political viewpoint and completely biased. This position is pure 'biological determinism'" is fatally flawed how many highly reliable sources show. --Destinero (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the comment above. The stand is more the result of political correctness, Western political direction and political lobbying from minority groups than of any scientific consensus (though undoubtedly a number of scientists do take that stand.)Sapienza (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The APA's official stance is that nobody knows whether it's nature or nurture (see http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx click on page 4). Surely that should be mentioned, instead of just stating that it's not a choice and citing two random studies. 98.233.210.6 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's not quite accurate to say that this is scientific consensus. The point is that scientific understanding of the basis of sexuality in general (whether homosexual, heterosexual or anything else) is very incomplete.  Sexuality is almost certainly a complex result of genes, other pre-natal influences, upbringing, other environmental factors, and perhaps (to a small extent) even choice.  This is not, of course, to say that anyone chooses to be gay; but I don't think anyone outside the crazy religious camp thinks that they do (the point is that we all make choices with regards to our sexuality and how we express it and so on, and this can influence the kind of people we're attracted to).  Now, I'm also always puzzled (as a non-heterosexual, very much pro-LGBT man) by the hostile reaction to any suggestion that homosexuality is anything other than entirely genetic.  Well, OK, I can kind of understand, but I think the reaction is based on false premises.   The question of whether it has an genetic basis or not has nothing at all to do with whether or not it's right or wrong. In fact, the causes of homosexuality are irrelevant to the morality of it, as they are to the nonsense question of whether it's "natural" or not (anyone who says homosexuality isn't "natural" should be instructed to take a course in philosophy; the word's little better than meaningless in this context).
 * Anyway, I've gone off on a bit of a tangent now. Sorry! Here's my point: scientific knowledge on the basis of sexuality is patchy, and the consensus is that we don't know enough yet. Any Wikipedia article on sexuality should reflect that.  garik (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. There is no scientific evidence that parenting, sexual abuse, other adverse life events, or early childhood experiences influence sexual orientation." presents a scientific consensus and this statement rely on the most cited peer-reviewed pediatric journal on the world Pediatrics issued by the largest pediatrics association on the world and it is supported also by a recent review by an oldest psychiatric assotiation on the world. This is perfectly acceptable on basis of Reliable_sources (medicine-related articles), Reliable sources, since it is obviously not two randomly studies (primary sources) as you suggested but reliable reviews (secondary sources) by a neutral professional associations. And Wikipedia has to present scientific consensus and the facts supported by the most reliable sources available. --Destinero (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to say Wikipedia should not remove or conceal facts supported by highly reliable sources just because some political or religious groups don't like those facts and claims otherwise without evidence. --Destinero (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, just do not forget to mention (eh to copy-paste) in text of the article, that "There is no scientific evidence" about it, so it is not a prrof of the fact, but proof that there is no fact.--DeeMusil (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)