User talk:Njones7

September 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Sexual orientation. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Njones7, what you keep removing from the lead are based on the reliable sources in the lead. Even the Sexual orientation template (seen on its right) is designed that way. Pansexuality is generally subsumed under bisexuality (it's certainly covered by it for the most part), and transsexuality is not a sexual orientation. Unless you have WP:Reliable sources (that can rival the reputable sources in the article categorizing sexual orientation) showing that sexual orientation has other categories, you should refrain from removing this material. And even if you were to provide reliable sources showing that other categories are recognized by researchers as sexual orientations, it would not mean that the commonly cited ones should be removed. If you must, explain yourself at Talk:Sexual orientation by starting a new discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the words "In research fields" so that it is clear why the definition of sexual orientation is "limited" in this way. These are the official terms used by researchers, as shown by the reputable/reliable sources in the article. The scientific community has not attributed any other term as a sexual orientation. As a sexual preference or as something that is like a sexual orientation? Sure. But that is different. I must say that I really cannot understand your removing the line "describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to males, females, both, or neither." Really, what else is there outside of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to males, females, both, or neither in regards to sexual orientation? Pansexuality and transsexuality are covered by those things. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated in my edit summary, it's not just "research fields in the United States" that use these terms. You cited this edit as attributed to the American Psychological Association, but they do not make that particular claim. They state, "In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes)." And the Wikipedia Sexual orientation article, while largely dominated by American sources, clearly demonstrates that American researchers are not the only ones that use the terms "heterosexuality," "homosexuality," and "bisexuality." Further, what is the point of adding "Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex" right after the introduction to these attractions and before the categories? That line is speaking of heterosexuality and homosexuality and their different levels (which, yes, includes bisexuality). And not only is this continuum called the "heterosexual-homosexual continuum," it is addressed lower in the lead. That is where I added your piece about that (though redundant). The American Psychological Association says that sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories (heterosexual, gay/lesbian, and bisexual), but the reason they say "usually" is because there is the fact of asexuality (which has only recently been recognized as a sexual orientation) and people who don't use any label (such as parts of the world where sexual orientation labels are not prescribed). Just because some people don't want to be labeled and don't know of labels doesn't mean that they don't fall into these categories when describing their romantic/sexual attractions. Using "frequently" or "usually" after the words "in research fields" is not needed because there are no other terms used in research fields when it comes to sexual orientation. The only other one I can think of is pansexuality, but that is always subsumed under bisexuality.


 * I'm taking this discussion to the talk page so that others can weigh in. I advise that you weigh in there as well so that we can figure out what you are trying to do and how best to assist you, if we can. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)