Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathogenic theory of homosexuality

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge with Gregory Cochran. Ingoolemo  talk  05:01, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Pathogenic theory of homosexuality
One person's untested speculation does not constitute a scientific theory and does not warrant an article in an encyclopedia. If kept at all, it should be mentioned in the article about the one who promulgates this hypothesis, Gregory Cochran. Citation of reliable sources are necessary for an alleged 'scientific theory'. --Tabor 16:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Gregory Cochran is very well known scientist, with articles in the Economist about him, including his theory on [high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews may be a result of their persecuted past]. In stead of censoring this issue, allow the article's facts and arguements to be marshaled in the discussion page. Articles on the Pathogenic theory of homosexuality An Evolutionary Look at Human Homosexuality and here by Harvard professor Caleb Crain originally published in Out magazine, August 1999, pp. 46&#8211;49. 'Gay Germ'. If Out magazine can air this theory, I'm sure Wikipedia can too. Side note: perhaps it would be a good idea to take 5 seconds and research the issue on Google instead of, in my opinion, an unneeded VfD debate. --ShaunMacPherson 16:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The book The Puzzle. Exploring the Evolutionary Puzzle of male homosexuality., notes found here lists Gregory Cochran as a source of further reading.  As much as people may not want this theory to exist it does and is not Wikipedia's job to censor ideas which appear mainstream enough to be in the economist, in books like the one above.
 * The 'reliable sources' you cite are a blog and a personal web page. Gregory Cochran is a physicist. Caleb Crain is a writer (not a professor, not affiliate with Harvard) with a degree in English who says of his blog at harvard.edu: I started this blog mostly because it was free. Harvard Law School, which I didn't attend, was offering to host blogs by anyone with a harvard.edu address.  Google hits just show other people reporting that Gregory Cochran has said something provocative.  Also, please review Scientific_theory before characterizing something as a scientific theory.  --Tabor 16:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032638 [high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews may be a result of their persecuted past] metions the theory as well, it's out there as a theory, it's not our job at Wikipedia to surpress these theories but to describe them in a NPOV fashion. If the article was in Out magazine that means it is 'main stream', main stream enough that it isn't the sole ravings of one unknown scientist, but a well respected scientist - and the theory has been around since at least 1999.  Let's do some research and put it into the article instead of deleting it 30 minutes after it was created. --ShaunMacPherson 17:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, all that article has to say about this topic is once sentence that says, And more controversially still, he has suggested that homosexuality is caused by an infection. At most, that belongs in the Gregory Cochran article.  Out magazine recently reported that Elizabeth Taylor's dog Sugar recently passed on -- appearing in Out magazine does not inherently make something worth documenting on Wikipedia.  Even the primary source you cite (article from Out says): It is worth repeating that there is no evidence for a gay germ yet. and At this point, there is only speculation pitted against speculation. Wikipedia is not the place for putting forward rampant speculation as legitimate scientific theory (which requires that a conjecture be tested and shown to hold true to the empirical evidence, among other things).  --Tabor 17:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Then say in the article it is 'rampant speculation', if indeed you can find such a quote. So far there are a number (3?) of mainstream sources I've quoted that talk about this issue, be it a theory or conjecture or however you wish to classify this concept.  How many sources do you want from your statement "citation of reliable sources are necessary for an alleged 'scientific theory'", there are a variety of theories that are wrong, and controversial yet if they are in magazines and come from known scientists then it seems to me it has a place on Wikipedia.  Raise objections with the article in the article itself. --ShaunMacPherson 17:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOR. Unstable neologisms, and ideas stemming from one individual who is not an authority, or from a small group of such individuals, should either go to "votes for deletion" (because they "fail the test of confirmability", not because they are necessarily false), or should be copyedited out. --Tabor 17:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to be wrong, we'll take it one point at a time. You said "and ideas stemming from one individual". But it doesnt stem from one individual but at least two: "Paul W. Ewald (1), a biology professor at Amherst College in Massachusetts, and Gregory Cochran (2), an independent physicist in Albuquerque". You quoted "individual who is not an authority", but they are authorities, one is a biology professor and the other is an indepentnt physicist who is known (same source). --ShaunMacPherson 18:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you miss or from a small group of such individuals? --Tabor 18:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you see what a neologism was? It is a coined word, the idea that germs cause homosexuality doesnt seem to be a neologism, and if you'd like to verify (which you should have done before putting it up on vfd) that this idea only comes from one person (it doesnt) and they are not authorities (they seem to be) then please present your citations. --ShaunMacPherson 18:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * RE: "it seems to me it has a place on Wikipedia" ... sure, the place would be Gregory Cochran, not a separate article with a POV title that presupposes homosexuality is pathological and that promotes it to the level of a theory. --Tabor 18:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you've read the gay germ article entirely, since you've quoted from it at least once so far, and noticed at the start of the second paragraph: Paul W. Ewald, a biology professor at Amherst College in Massachusetts, and Gregory Cochran, an independent physicist in Albuquerque which indicates two people, why should this theory go into one person's page (Gregory Cochran) and not the other? Perhaps you advocate this idea be placed in multiple articles of individuals across Wikipedia articles for those who support or comment on this theory? ShaunMacPherson 18:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)-- 18:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, can you tell me what Ewald has said about it? --Tabor 18:23, 8 Jun 2005
 * Since you are the one putting up the article 30 minutes after it was created, and I'm sure with good reason, then the onus seems to be on you to justify why you want to delete it. I welcome your input and research to justify deleteing it. Since you say "One person's untested speculation" and it is at least two, and "Citation of reliable sources are necessary for an alleged 'scientific theory', and I've given 3 citations perhaps you were a bit hasty in putting this up for vfd since it seems both reasons you gave for doing so are wrong. --ShaunMacPherson 18:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable junk. Shaun's suggestion that the pros and cons of the supposed theory be debated on the article's talk page is contrary to WP policy. Maybe Gregory Cochran should be VfD'd too.&mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 17:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * At least two scientists (and professor) disagree with you, Paul W. Ewald and Gregory Cochran here. Since there are multiple links to entries from reputible sources (do you object to TheEconomist?) then it isnt unverifable junk.  As for deleting the article on Gregory Cochran, what is the basis of this suggestion? --ShaunMacPherson 18:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. So this guy's saying that homosexuality is a disease, or is he saying that the chances of becoming a homosexual are affected by exposure to certain pathogens (disease-causing agents like bacteria and viruses)? Either way, it sounds like something that you'd hear from a person with an anti-gay POV. I don't think we need this in Wikipedia, thank you.--Chanting Fox 18:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It is from more than one person, Tabor's characterization that this is "One person's untested speculation" is incorrect as Professor and Biologist Paul Ewald also supports the idea. Perhaps more people do as well, not much research could be done since it was put up on VfD only 30 minutes after creation.


 * Keep Its a real "theory" although the proper term is probably hypothesis, this is a real person, who is really listened to by real people, thus it is encyclopedic to keep these ideas here even if the community at large thinks they are ludicrous. This is again, abuse of the VfD. Clean up, Move, and plain old editing are more than enough to save this article from POV or Junk status. Also, try to avoid turning the VfD into a personal convseration please?--Tznkai 18:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I think that what this Gregory Cochran has been promulgating is utter rubbish. But that is irrelevant. If this theory is, as Tabor has said, the unverifiable ramblings of a small group of men, it has no place on Wikipedia, so then my vote would be delete. But if it is a more less established scientific theory, I would vote keep and send to cleanup. Oh, and Shaun, although your defense of this article is inspiring, toning down your defense won't do you any harm. Aecis 18:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree it needs a lot of cleanup, the article was put up only 30 minutes after it was created. I really never saw anthing quite like it :o). Please help, especially with the wording (The mob that follows me around takes care of my spelling :).--ShaunMacPherson 18:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Like everything else it has to be NPOV but I don't think that the solution is to keep anyone from explaining the theories, however offbeat they may seem to the average reader, if there is some support for the theory.  Quashing it immediately after someone tries to work on it is not a reasonable thing to do IMO (unlike what we do to vanity, spam or some of the other dreck we see here). DS1953 19:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If we are going to assert support for the theory, could someone please provide at least one source that meets the criteria of Reliable_sources? --Tabor 19:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * It is from more than one person, Tabor's characterization that this is "One person's untested speculation" is incorrect as Professor and Biologist Paul Ewald also supports the idea. Perhaps more people do as well, not much research could be done since it was put up on VfD only 30 minutes after creation. --ShaunMacPherson 18:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that this has been put up on VfD doesn't mean that no research or no edits are possible, Shaun. It's what happened to Upton, Warwickshire, and those edits turned the article from a certain delete into a certain keep. It just means that those edits might turn out to have been in vain. Aecis 18:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ewald is evidently quite careful about what he says on the topic; I don't know that "support" would be quite the word. From your own source: In a carefully worded e-mail, Ewald, for his part, asserts only that "the argument about infectious causation of homosexuality is a feasible hypothesis and should be treated as such&#8212;no more and no less."   Untested hypotheses are not Wikipedia material unless they are newsworthy in their own right, such as cold fusion. If other editors believe that a single sentence in the Economist reporting what someone has "suggested" and an article in Out magazine constitute sufficient newsworthiness to overcome the lack of any peer-reviewed scientific publications, so be it. I personally have no objection to a Gregory Cochran article, and think that where this belongs. --Tabor 19:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * While I would be the first to agree that the germ theory has about as much scientitic credentials as GWB, this is parable to the Intelligent Design theory. While less known than ID, it is equally rejected by science, but still equally notable, IMO. Flaged as a stub, plenty of time for it to improve with an accurate and complete discussion about its merits and considerable flaws--Tznkai 20:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Equally as notable as intellingent design? Are you serious? --Tabor 22:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to subsection at Homophobia, after the level of reporting has been raised. --Wetman 19:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Goofy, perhaps offensive, theory - but seems to be notable enough. Could benefit from information about scholarly criticisms and rejections, but that is a matter for clean-up. --Doc (?) 22:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * One problem is that if an eccentric notion is not widely publicised and not widely believed, as well as being far outside what is established in mainstream science, no scientist is going to bother criticizing or rejecting it; no one is going to give it a second thought, because no credible scientific source is going to publish it. --Tabor 22:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The book The Puzzle. Exploring the Evolutionary Puzzle of male homosexuality., notes found here lists Gregory Cochran as a source of further reading.  As much as people may not want this theory to exist it does and is not Wikipedia's job to censor ideas which appear mainstream enough to be in the economist, in books like the one above. --ShaunMacPherson 08:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Noone in here is saying that it should be deleted because it's not politically correct. The issue is whether or not this topic is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. We can't just include every brainfart simply because it exists. And I'm still not sure whether this is notable enough. But then again, YMMV. Aecis 10:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a web page about the book that cites Gregory Cochran for further reading. Someone's web page about the book, not the book.  In fact the same personal web site you have already cited.  As with the blogger you mistook for a Harvard professor, please try to examine sources carefully and not distort the origin of the information. --Tabor 02:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you say so, although I'm not sure what quality of research you expect when you put up articles for deletion 5 minutes after the topic was started. If you want more information than research it *before* putting it up for deletion, thanks. --ShaunMacPherson 23:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You could also have researched the theory further and for instance have written the article in Word before posting it here. Noone is forced to come up with an article out of the blue. The quality of your research is not determined by the time between the start of the topic and the nomination for deletion. To paraphrase you: if you want us to know more about the topic, then research it *before* creating the article. Aecis 13:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Gregory Cochran but stop calling it a theory. It's nothing of the sort. The article says even its supporters acknowledge it's pure speculation with no evidence to support it. --Angr/undefined 23:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The difference between 'theory' and 'speculation' is semantics - theory can mean little more than 'hunch'. Since we have Flat Earth Society why not other dubious 'theories', if they are notable enough --Doc (?) 00:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This is flat-out wrong, despite what the creation-science crowd would have you believe. Theory is a well-defined scientific term and means something quite different from hunch.&mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 05:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course the difference between the meanings of 'theory' and 'speculation' is semantics; semantics is the study of the meanings of words. The difference between the meanings of 'cat' and 'dog' is semantics, as is the difference between the meanings of 'black' and 'white'. --Angr/undefined 07:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Gregory Cochran for reasons noted above. --FCYTravis 00:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a broader article about Cochran's idea that conditions that the layperson would expect to be "bred out" might all be caused by microbes would be a better idea. The hypothesis he's putting forward is not unscientific -- and nothing like as offensive as some are trying to make out -- but it's not a widely pursued line of thought. Does that make it not worth coverage? Well, he's got a bit of press -- on the gay germ angle -- so it's been noted. We shouldn't be judging the notability of scientific, or quasiscientific, ideas on our own account but merely considering whether they are part of the general discourse on science and things scientific. This seems to be to me, but I don't much like this particular article. So no vote from me but I'd like to see this merged into a less contentiously titled article (avoiding the word "theory").Grace Note 07:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does have standards for scientific and medical topics ... see: Reliable_sources. This comes nowhere close.  Not only is it unpublished and without peer review, there is not even the slightest attempt at empirical validation.  It is nowhere in the neighborhood.  Not even close. Sorry ... guess I am venting here.  Sometimes it seems that Wikipedia is willing to drop all standards of reliable information in an inflated interpretation of NPOV and the lowest possible barriers of "notability". :-S  Tabor 02:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Gregory Cochran and turn into a redirect. Note that media publishes comments based on newsworthiness, not based on scientific criteria. 1 supporter + 1 tentative comment do not make this accepted scientific theory - Skysmith 08:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge' into Gregory Cochran. I agree this is original research, and wuold only be notable wrt Cochran himself. Axon 10:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Gregory Cochran. Wikipedia doesn't need a page on every unsubstantiated hypothesis ever proposed and Cochran is not a significant figure in this research area. --Ian Pitchford 14:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Professor and Biologist Paul Ewald also supports the theory. Why put it under one person's article instead of the other's? The idea that if something affects the fitness ability of an organism to procreate, and that it has been around for a lengthy period of time, germ theory of disease, then it is likely not genetics but a pathogen that is the cause. That is why people think that schotizophrenia is a caused by a pathogen, and that it has been found that ulcers once thought caused by stress or genetics has a bacterial cause from helicobacter pylori.  --ShaunMacPherson 08:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep even though the theory is very likely complete junk, there are people out there promoting it; and WP is an excellent place to present NPOV information about itIt seems . -- AlexR 10:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Gregory Cochran. Megan1967 06:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Gregory Cochran. It is only one example in Cochran's hypothesis, and it doesn't seem notable enough to warrant its own article. He appears to be the main proponent of the hypothesis, probably getting mentioned whenever it's mentioned.  Offensiveness or non-political correctness in science shouldn't be taken into account when considering deletion. --Nectarflowed T 23:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .