Template:Did you know nominations/Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities

 * ... that boys who have more feminine gender roles at a younger age and/or identify as gay or bisexual are at higher risk of suicide, sexual abuse, drug abuse, and arrests for sexual misconduct?


 * Reviewed: Angel tube station
 * Reviewed: Grete Keilson

Created/expanded by Zumoarirodoka (talk). Nominated by Timtrent (talk) at 08:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC).


 * It was moved to mainspace on a previous day before the nomination. I moved this nomination accordingly. George Ho (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * New enough when nominated; long enough; article has sufficient inline citations, no obvious POV problems or copyvios; DES (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hook is short enough and interesting. DES (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Detailed check for copyvios or paraphrasing from source not done. DES (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Hook is not, IMO, properly supported by the source. Specifically, the source is about comparing gay and bisexual men who attempted suicide with gay/bi men who did not. The hook (and the article) does not mention this, and seems to impy a comparison between gay and non-gay males. The source also compares those who "...adopted a bisexual or homosexual identity at younger ages" with those who adop them at older ages, not with those who never adopt such an identity. This is also not clear in the hook or in the article section from which the hook is drawn. The source is behind a paywall, I am basing these commetns on the visible abstract. If the full source text supports the hook as stated (which i doubt) then the quote= parameter of the cite template could be used to document this. Better the article section could be rewritten to more closely follow the source, and the hook rewritten or a different hook selected. DES (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have asked to look at this. I am simply the nominator. They did the hard work, and they will attend to or discuss the issues you have found. Thank you for the detailed review.  Fiddle   Faddle  21:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me. I agree with what  is saying about the hook (I am going off the abstract here as well), sorry I did not notice the error before writing the article, and thus this nomination. I'm fairly new to WP:DYK – will this need to be renominated, or can we make changes now? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * [additional comment] However, you say that it is not clear that the article and source discusses about adopting a gay or bisexual identity at a younger age with those who do at an older age. I've rewrote the article to say Multiple studies have correlated childhood gender nonconformity with eventual homosexual or bisexual outcomes in males, and gay and bisexual boys who have more feminine gender roles at a younger age are at higher risk of suicide, sexual abuse, drug abuse, and arrests for sexual misconduct than their peers, which is what I believe the source seems to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong, I am very tired right now). Please tell me if you think this is incorrect – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * you may make changes at any time (from what I have seen; I am not a DYK expert either). The nomination stands until accepted or rejected. I very much like the current hook. Are you able to find references for it as it stands, or do we need a new one? I was attracted to this article by that hook, which is why I favour it, and hope you can reference it to make it fly. Fiddle   Faddle  21:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that. I must have misread the abstract. As I have rewritten the article, I suggest that the hook should say that boys who have more feminine gender roles at a younger age and identify as gay or bisexual are at higher risk of suicide, sexual abuse, drug abuse, and arrests for sexual misconduct than their peers?, or simply ...that gay and bisexual boys who have more feminine gender roles at a younger age are at higher risk of suicide, sexual abuse, drug abuse, and arrests for sexual misconduct than their peers? As of yet, I have not been able to find anything on heterosexual boys with feminine gender roles and higher riskes of suicide, sexual abuse, drug abuse etc. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , Both article and DYK nom can be rewritten until we have an approved nom, no need to resubmit, many noms go throuhh several rounds of changes. DES (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem here, as I see it, is that the article doesn't define "their peers" in the revised text, and a reader will naturally assume that it means other boys who do not identify as gay, or boys of the sme age in general. But in fact it means, in the cited study, gay or bisexual boys who did not attempt suicide. The sourcve says: "Subjects were 137 gay and bisexual males, 14 through 21 years of age, from the upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest." It does not compare gay to non-gay or to the general population at all. This needs to be clarified more fully, particularly because there is a wide perception that gays in general are more prone to suicide, and this could be taken as evidence in favor of that belief, while in fact it is nothing of the sort. To correctly represent the rather complex point this study is makign would IMO be hard to do in 200 characters, but if it can be done, great. or if a different source wupports the staement that the hook is now making, also fine. But not as it stands, in my view. DES (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that additional sources have now been added, I haven't yet reviewed them to see if they suport the current text. I also note that the text of the article now mentions "higher risk of ... sexual abuse, drug abuse ...". It is not clear, at least to me, if this means higher risk of commiting sexual abuse, or if it means that victims of sexual abuse are at higher risk for suicide, or even both. On this sort of issue, clarity is important iMO. DES (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The additional sources were from the childhood gender nonconformity article, and I checked what they said (but feel free to correct me if you feel needs be). I've also changed "peers" to "other gay and bisexual youth" and changed "higher risk of" to "higher risk of reporting", to clarify within the article. I'm not sure how you'd like the hook to be changed to reflect this. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The current text says: "...gay and bisexual boys who adopted more feminine gender roles at a younger age are at higher risk of reporting suicide, sexual abuse, drug abuse, and arrests for sexual misconduct than other gay and bisexual youth." Is that acceptable wording, in your opinion? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC) [signed later]
 * Symbol confirmed.svg, that looks much clearer to me. In fact, i think this DYK is now good to go. DES (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I came to promote this. In the future, please do not edit and re-edit the original hook, but list each new version as ALT1, ALT2, etc. That way we can follow the thread of the discussion. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, and sorry. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)