Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard

Previous discussions:
 * (Discussions with no activity in the past month will be archived.)


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard/Archive 1


 * Topics: Starting this notice board, LGBT, Oscar Wilde, Mergers & renames, FABGLITTER, Two-Spirit, LGBT Sub-categories


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard/Archive 2


 * Topics: Missing Articles, Laws of the world, Outing, Effective ways to inform readers about issues, More mergers?, "Straight acting"?, David Charlebois, Archiving, Naming country articles, Kathoey, References, Categorization, Boyfriends, Category, Bisexual philosophers, Gay rights in India, Rename Category:AIDS victims, COTW, List of gay topics, INCOTW


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard/Archive 3


 * Topics: Missing Categories, What belongs here, NPOV tag, New requested move, User bi template, Archiving, LGBT interest box, Queer and LGBT wikipedians


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard/Archive 4


 * Topics: Same-sex marriage in Estonia, Our fellow Wikipedians, Proposition, Relevant user conduct disputes, Innocent curiosity, Please be nice, Media question, Sexual identity, Manual of style?, Mind if I steal the idea?, Page move, Inclusion of Straight topics, Repeated homophobic vandalism, Manchester Pride, Barnstar, Peter Ackroyd, List of gay pride events, Animal homosexuality


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard/Archive 5

Anal sex in the Bible (Mishk'vei ishah)
I'm sure I mentioned Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah before. But I can't find it in this page's history, or archives.

Its still at AfD, if anyone wants to express their view. Newman Luke (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

John Bosco
Three years ago, John Bosco was a disputed article that was moderated and settled in this WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Notice_board/Archive_2. It appears that the two editors, who sparked the dispute, are back and trying to deleted the compromise. How does this case get re-opened?

2022 FIFA World Cup
There is a discussion related to LGBT issues at the Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup‎ page. Grim23 ★ 02:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility and equality as core policies
I propose that we add a commitment to accessibility and equality to the Five pillars. Please join discussion at Wikipedia talk:Five pillars. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Liberace
There seems to have been a bit of a situation brewing at Liberace; over the past several months, there seems to have been a slow-motion edit war consisting of anonymous IPs removing LGBT-related categories from the article on the grounds that denying it during his lifetime somehow proves that he wasn't, followed by a signed-in Wikipedia editor later readding them, followed by another anonymous IP removing them again, lather, rinse, repeat.

Obviously this isn't acceptable, so I need to ask for some additional eyes to watchlist the article in case this crops up again. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

LGBT keywords?
At time of writing, clicking the "What links here?" link at the Nan Joyce article shows that WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard links there because Nan Joyce was identified by a bot as containing so-called "LGBT keywords". Since Nan Joyce is heterosexual, I am curious to know what "LGBT keywords" precisely were in the article I wrote. It was not my intention to suggest that she is a lesbian. Where is the list of "LGBT keywords", and which did I use? — O'Dea (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request‎
Greetings! In accordance with the conditions set forth in the previous discussion of the Bradley Manning/Chelsea Manning title dispute, a new move request has been filed and is now underway. bd2412 T 20:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

SSM in Washington DC
Selected anniversaries/March 9 has a blurb that states: Given the recent court rulings, is this statement still true? Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 08:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2010 – The first same-sex marriages in Washington, D.C.—the only jurisdiction south of the Mason–Dixon line where they are legal—took place.
 * No. Better "the first" south of, not "the only" any more. Would need more of a rewrite. "the first jurisdiction south of the M-D Line where they became legal" or better to rethink entirely:
 * "The first U.S. same-sex marriages south of the M-D line took place in Washington DC." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Good enough to keep, yet not perfectly balanced about my nation's superstar who was outed 30 years after death
My nation had an artist who gained a superstar status, from the mid-1950s until the late 1960s at a time when we had no local-TV stations or -radio stations--only a national broadcaster (at a time when we were transitioning from a predominantly rural economy).

A notable member of my nation's intelligentsia (and an administrator of the wikipedia of my language), is now making edits regarding this superstar, who had "celebrity friends [that] had participated in spreading, and that made Prøysen into an almost Christlike figure, the mascot of the entire social democracy, that they could bask in the glory of?" (How this member of the intelligentsia is removing content about other living members of the intelligentsia, might be somewhat questionable.)

The result of the edits are that content is being removed about descriptions about how members of the intelligentsia were non-forthcoming (for several decades after the artist's death) in regards to the artist's bisexuality.

An extra reason to keep the content is that it might give an indication about the general mood in sections of society, after sex between men was decriminalized in the early 1970s. Since only this other editor and I, currently are editing the article and the talk page, we might need some extra help in regards to how the general lines about a person's sexuality should be drawn, in cases like this one.

A quote which also has been removed, is "Furthermore Røsbak says that "I became less and less enthusiastic about the imposition that was alive among friends of Prøysen, about that this [the topic of the sexual preferences] was to be held within engere circles, as a topic over glasses of red wine, as a hot topic of gossip, but that must not be brought any further", out of (what Røbak's sources called) consideration for the family of Prøysen". --Abalonney (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * To be exact, Alf Prøysen's career and fame spanned from 1945 till his early death in 1970. If Abalonney wishes to expand the en:wp biography about Prøysen, i could recommend the no:wp version of the article, which I contributed to this spring, prior to the centeniary i july. Abalonney's interest in this biography seems however to be quite narrow, focusing only on the "recent" (i.e. 2004) news that Prøysen had bisexual feelings, and discussed them with friends during the 60's.
 * Prøysen's bisexuality as such is quite well sourced and discussed, even though Abalonney does not know, or have access to these sources (I've mentioned some of them at Talk:Alf Prøysen, and used almost all of them in the section Alf_Prøysen#Bifil-debatten_2004). The problem with Abalonney's contributions is therefore not that they are revealing any new part of Prøysen's life, or that someone wants to withdraw facts. The problem is, IMHO, that the whole section about bisexuality seem to describe Røsbak's research process, different opinions about Prøysen's bisexuality and Røsbak's reflections about that. Thus, focus is not on Prøysen, but on Røsbak. That is not a good way to write an encyclopedic biography about Prøysen. Bw Orland (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

About Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yolanda Retter
Hi LGBT studies people.

This article for creation was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:G13, as it had not been edited for months. Retter was significant enough for a Los Angeles Times obituary. I've added a JSTOR ref. Could you possibly have a little look at this article?

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

April Fool's OTD
I've been accused of including a "transphobic" item for the April Fool's version of WP:Selected anniversaries. Please comment at WT:Selected anniversaries/April 1. The blurb in question is: As the story goes, the emperor's infant daughter was announced to be a boy by the Empress Dowager and then installed on the throne as Emperor. So in the tradition of the WP:April Fool's Main Page, we mislead the reader by implying something other than the truth by using wording which is technically accurate. I am genderqueer myself and I didn't see anything wrong with it, but would like additional opinions. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 10:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 528 – The daughter of Emperor Xiaoming of China's Northern Wei dynasty underwent a sex change and was installed as Emperor for a single day.

2nd opinion requested
I've indef-blocked a user for anti-transgender soapboxing on his talk page. However, as I have little experience in these matters, I'd appreciate a 2nd opinion. Rklawton (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You blocked felt_friend claiming "Extreme, unwarranted harassment" - who is he harassing by writing that on his talk page? (And what is "warranted" harassment for that matter?) I don't see anything on WP:SOAP that would prevent what he wrote. He didn't advocate removing anyone's rights or violence against anyone or even hatred. Maybe he just really likes vaginas. Maybe felt_friend is a transgender woman and she strongly believes surgery is an important step. This would seem to be a case of user immaturity that deserved at most a warning (though I'm still not sure which policy was violated by the pro-females with vaginas stance).  —Мандичка YO 😜 12:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You are invited
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
 * Thanks for posting! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration request: Deletion of sourced content motivated by personality disagreements
User:Flyer22 Reborn has just deleted some edits I had made to an article, Gay sexual practices. She gave as reason this, "Revert editing by editor already warned more than once." What I have been warned about, I don't know - I have not been warned not to make edits on that entry. Many edits I have made, are in fact still there. Here's what she deleted from the entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_sexual_practices&type=revision&diff=741074736&oldid=740834830

Please, be the judge of whether the deletion is a good choice, and whether her justification is fair, and not just mindlessly hurtful and antagonistic. I believe my recent edits were well written, and every single one of their assertions was backed by a reliable source.

Over a year ago User:Flyer22 Reborn and I had a disagreement over a separate article, one about neurological differences across sexual orientations. I had made some contributions about performance differences between gay and straight people on intelligence tests; the edits were all based on reliable sources - peer-reviewed works from scientific journals. She, however, decided the edits were biased in favor of gay people, arbitrarily removed them with what, in my view, were awful arguments, but because her friends agreed with her, I've been permanently outnumbered and my supposedly "pro-gay" edits have been deleted for over a year. Every time I tried to edit other parts of that entry - again using reliable sources - I was reverted, so I gave up on it. But User:Flyer22 Reborn has taken her crusade to other articles as well, such as the one above. She doesn't care that my contributions are informed by the scientific literature - she will delete them. I've waged edit wars before and I've lashed back offensively at User:Flyer22 Reborn and her friends, for which I've been temporarily banned. I've not always behaved well, but neither has she. From the beginning, when she decided she disliked my edits on intelligence and sexual orientation, she accused me right away of maligning straight people, failing to assume good faith from the upstart. In my edits to the entry about gay sex practices, she's furthermore accused me of being obsessed with anal sex. Because of my immaturity, I've not always been able to handle her ceaseless provocations well, for which I've been punished. She, however, has escaped all consequences.

I'm a gay man, I have a natural interest in these topics. My edits, furthermore, comply with Wikipedia's policies; they are written in a clear and concise style (which not always can be said for User:Flyer22 Reborn's contributions) and they are always grounded on reliable sources. If User:Flyer22 Reborn or someone else dislikes what I'm saying, there are kinder and more constructive ways to go about any disagreements. The way she's doing it, it feels like I'm banned from ever contributing on gay issues on Wikipedia, which I'm not. I'm tired of what I feel is arbitrary deletions, with provocative justifications, of my good faith edits; but I don't want to merely lash back anymore - I don't want to get into trouble with Wikipedia's interaction rules again, which I know are here for a reason. So I am appealing to the wisdom of LGBT project members and ask them to to weigh in. Rafe87 (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Rafe87, you are neglecting, or apparently don't know, that I am member of WP:LGBT; I have been for years. Whether any of us are LGBT, or are a member of WP:LGBT, should not be the issue, however. As I noted before, people commonly assume that I'm LGBT and non-LGBT based on any particular edit I make.


 * To others, the above commentary by Rafe87 includes mischaracterizations. You are free to see what happened by looking at the two discussions here and here. My edits were supported not only by non-LGBT editors but by LGBT editors as well. Rafe87 does not follow the WP:Policies and guidelines. At the Biology and sexual orientation article, Rafe87 repeatedly added material that went against WP:MEDRS and/or WP:Undue weight, as KateWishing, CFCF, JJMC89 and Jytdog can attest to. At the Gay sexual practices article, Rafe87 has repeatedly misrepresented material, added WP:Undue weight, added and/or misrepresented material based on U.S. samples, and consistently tried to bias content in favor of anal sex by making anal sex seem more prevalent among gay men (and gay male couples) than it actually is. Fact is...many gay men state that they do not and have never engaged in anal sex; this is sourced in the Anal sex article and in the Gay sexual practices article, and yet Rafe87 has always had a problem with that content. This was clear to me and to Prcc27. He has repeatedly acted questionably in this regard, lately by IP hopping to avoid scrutiny and so he can edit war and not have to engage in discussion. Fed up, I pinged Mrx, another LGBT editor, to the matter, and he stated, "I don't have any subject matter expertise here, but I think you were right to revert. Making general statements based off of individual studies is problematic. If this keeps happening with the same content, then an SPI may be in order."


 * My latest revert of Rafe87 was because he engaged in more of the same. He changed "Many MSM, however, do not engage in anal sex" to "many MSM do not frequently engage in anal sex", and added the wording "And while lifetime participation in anal sex is high (>80%) among gay and bisexual men", to make it seem as though all MSM engage in anal sex and it's just that some MSM engage in it less frequently than others. The source he used for the "while lifetime participation in anal sex is high (>80%) among gay and bisexual men" piece is a source about sexual practices in North American Medical Students, and yet he used this source to make a sweeping generalization, as though the source is talking about MSM in general. He also added more individual/primary source material and without any regard for WP:MEDRS. WP:MEDRS is important, despite some editors thinking that it's not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also want to note what sounds to me like intentional misrepresentation of my edits in User:Flyer22 Reborn's accusations against me. In the talk page to Gay Sex Practices, I stand accused, according to her charge, of "relying on individual studies" to assert that most men-who-have-sex-with-men have taken part in anal sex (why is that bad, by the way?). However, in presenting her case to have the entry protected, she makes a different accusation, that I've made "unsourced changes to sourced material", which anyone who visits the history record can see is wholly untrue. There are vast differences in both accusations; one (deleting sourced material and inserting unsourced claims) is the work of a troll, the other (relying on studies User:Flyer22 Reborn dislikes) is not. And it's she who's deleting sourced material. My latest edits don't delete a thing - they add material.
 * Also notice that, while her complaints against me in the talk page of the gay sex entry make reference solely to one edit that she dislikes - the one about lifetime frequency of gay sex - she's deleted a whole lot more, including big edits I made about sexual dysfunctions among gay and bi men, which is a subjected the entry didn't breach prior to my edit (and doesn't anymore, thanks to her valiant efforts to keep my dirty hands off the entry).
 * Another blatant misrepresentation: In one edit, now deleted, I say, based in a study, that "lifetime participation in anal sex is high (>80%) among gay and bisexual men". However, according to User:Flyer22 Reborn, what I'm trying to do with "[t]hese changes" is to "make it seem as though all MSM engage in anal sex". I'm sorry, but since when 80% = all? And why should I not notice that +80% of gay/bi men have engaged in anal sex at least once in their lifetime, if that's what a study has found? (There are other studies I could use to argue that most MSM have had anal sex, by the way.) If she has sources that found something different (and she's never shown them), then let's insert them in the entry, let's notice how different studies show different numbers. Don't delete the study right away. Notice also her tone, "These changes were clearly made to make it seem as though all MSM engage in anal sex..." This is not the tone of someone assuming good faith; this is someone who's escalating hostilities by accusing a fellow editor with an agenda, who's accusing him of an agenda. Apparently, I'm some disgusting anal sex troll who wants to slur my fellow gay men as being anal sex trolls, too. In the talk page, she also canvasses another editor, User:Rivertorch/User:Rivertorch's Evil Twin, for the express purpose of reverting my edits. Rafe87 (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since User:Flyer22 Reborn is bringing up what happened between us in the article about Biology and sexual orientation, I'd like to bring attention to the bad quality of the arguments of some of her friends against me. I can't help but feel they were shopping excuses to justify the deletion of sourced content. One of her friends, User:CFCF, favored the deletion of my edits because the author of one of the papers, Satoshi Kanazawa defends a controversial theory for the etiology of sexual orientation. Nevermind that the theory itself was not mentioned in my edits - only the finding that gay people scored higher on intelligence tests across THREE nationally representative samples whose data were collected by university teams not at all affiliated to Kanazawa (for one sample, the British one, the data was collected in the 70s, when Kanazawa was still a child). But that didn't matter - User:CFCF doesn't like Kanazawa's weird theory, therefore he and his friends can just order me not to insert the article into the entry, regardless of the fact that his paper was peer-reviewed, that it was published in a scientific source, and that it analyzes data of the highest quality: large, nationally representative samples. I was outnumbered by Fly and her friends, but I still believe I'm in the right. I don't think deleting reliable sources is alright just because you can canvass a large number of people to your position. But I did have my supporters, by the way. For example, User:Gareth_Griffith-Jones, who noticed that Fly, CFCF etc. were engaging in "removal of references without an explanation". (Notice the unkind way he was treated by them in return - all without them facing any consequences, unlike me.) However, most people there were still against us and I gave up on editing it again. Rafe87 (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to challenge User:Flyer22 Reborn to show where I have misrepresented data and made anal sex look more popular than it is among gay couples. If I'm not mistaken, all data showing other forms of sex are more common - really, all data - was inserted into that entry by me. I know I am the one who inserted the Rosenberg and the NSSHB data, as well as the nationally representative data from Australia. (Some of these studies she may have deleted, in her misguided zeal.) Also, her phrasing makes it look like she knows what true lifetime participation in anal sex among gay men is, but she's never presented any study - any! - to back up the dogmatism of her opposition against me. Rafe87 (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * More mischaracterizations about what happened, including the assertion that Gareth Griffith-Jones supported you. Gareth Griffith-Jones clearly stated, "Doing a spell on Wikipedia:STiki which indicated the removal of references without an explanation other than the unhelpful, '(Stop edit warring; wait until a consensus is reached on the talk page)'. Being naturally suspicious of non-registered editors, I followed my instincts. The article is of no interest to me in any way." And you and I clearly have a different idea of what data is since, for example, the Wellings material was added by me. A significant portion of the Gay sexual practices article included/still somewhat includes material I wrote for the Anal sex article; Prcc27 then copied that material.


 * I fail to see how I misrepresented what you did. You have added unsourced changes to sourced material. And I noted above that you "added and/or misrepresented material based on U.S. samples." In those cases, you added material not supported by the sources, which means "unsourced." And, really, how do you not understand that it's problematic to add "lifetime participation in anal sex is high (>80%) among gay and bisexual men" and then source that to a source about sexual practices in North American medical students? That is an example of you taking a source about a specific sample in one region and generalizing it. And if you wanted it to be clear that many MSM do not engage in anal sex, you would have left that wording as is; you would not have changed it to "many MSM do not frequently engage in anal sex." As for your statement that "[t]here are other studies [you] could use to argue that most MSM have had anal sex," I'm certain that it would be another primary source study, mostly likely about the United States. When looking at what the secondary sources state about gay men and anal sex, they are consistently clear that it is generally one of the least practiced and/or least favored sexual activities, despite the media portraying it as the be-all and end-all among gay men. When it comes to MSM, that is commonly a broader category, but even among that category, anal sex is commonly one of the least practiced and/or least favored sexual activities. As for sexual dysfunctions among gay and bi men, I already cited WP:MEDRS issues above. I and others tried to explain WP:MEDRS to you before; this was at Talk:Biology and sexual orientation. You didn't understand or listen then. And you won't now. Also look into what WP:Canvassing actually is.


 * My trying to explain anything to you appears to be a waste of time. I will go ahead and contact WP:Med and WP:LGBT to weigh in. And the next time I reply, I will be arguing with tertiary and secondary sources, like I usually do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I see a lot of arguing about why you two disagree with each other but very little use of dispute resolution process. You can use RFCs, MEDIATION, and seek input at RSN or ORN to try to resolve the dispute. It would help if users would follow WP:BRD for new content, rather than a slow, protracted edit war over substantially the same content. It might be easier to attract knowledgeable editors to the discussion if it were a little less personal.- MrX 12:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * MrX, I really don't see what else I can do, except list sources to argue my points. I have stated what the problems with this edit are. Rafe87 does not understand, and he never takes the time to understand the WP:MEDRS guideline, and I don't think he ever will. You stated that you don't have any expertise on this topic, but that didn't stop you from realizing that "[m]aking general statements based off of individual studies is problematic." Every significantly experienced Wikipedia editor knows that, per WP:Primary sources, we are not supposed to build articles solely or mostly on WP:Primary sources (except in rare cases, like a medical condition that doesn't have many reviews). And, in the case at hand, common sense should tell anyone not to add "lifetime participation in anal sex is high (>80%) among gay and bisexual men" if you are going to source that to a source about sexual practices in North American medical students. We don't generalize like that. Not unless the sources do. You and I have encountered a number of editors who just don't understand and never will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

That you fail to see how you've mischaracterized me is proof only of your own reading limitations. I explicitly pointed out one instance how you've just done that, today. It is right there, a couple posts above, where I show how you surreptitiously change your charges against me according to the audience you're talking to: in the Talk Page, you say I rely on "individual studies" (which is the minimal number of studies needed to be able to insert a proposition, by the way?); however, in asking for the page to be put under protection, you accused me of something graver - of messing with sourced material. All my "unsourced" changes to "sourced material" are actually based on the relevant source itself. You can't see that because you don't have access to the studies yourself, or if you do, you're failing your responsibility as an editor by not checking them. That's what you should do to see if any one editor's changes are representing the source accurately or not - you should check them; you shouldn't just delete the edits right away. When I say that the NSSHB paper that is discussed in the entry analyzed data from sexually active men aged 18-59, it's because that's what it does. However, in your zeal to ban me from any participation in the entry, you seem to have decided that the part where it says "aged 18-59" should be deleted, based on the mere fact that it was added by me after the first part of the sentence had been added (by me, by the way - all NSSHB's references in that entry came from me; as proof of my commitment to improving the entry, I'm always looking for more sources to add). In any case, if you don't have access to the paper, please, stop pretending to know what's written in it. Stop messing with the entry and misrepresenting the content that was found and inserted into the entry by me.

I agree that the phrasing I used to discuss the study on North American medical student is inaccurate. But there are other ways to remedy the problem than what you're doing - blanket deletion of sourced material and angry accusations that your fellow editor has an agenda. You could, for example, follow the advice I have just given you in the "gay sex practiced" talk page: "We can simply notice that the study was based on a convenience, not probability, sample, that volunteers were self-selected, that they were students" etc. But no. You respond to my advice, not candidly, but with whiny complaints that I "don't listen", like you're doing now, without making any effort whatsoever to engage with the substance of my advice. You keep saying that "second sources" show that anal sex is less favored than other sex practices, but they say nothing about most gay men never engaging in it - if they had, you'd have inserted that claim yourself. Scientific data do show most, in fact the large majority of, gay men have had anal sex before. No source, primary or secondary, says otherwise. It's you who are mischaracterizing the scientific consensus by saying they somehow prove most gay men don't have anal sex just because "only" large minorities, about a third, take up one of the anal sex positions in their last sexual encounter. Since no secondary source says the thing you most wish to hear, that gay men don't have anal sex, my use of primary sources (plural) is not controversial.

I have no idea why is it bad to insert studies based on US samples. As a non-American, I certainly don't favor them. However, the US does hit above its weight in the world of scientific publications. A large number of studies on any topic (especially studies in English) will therefore have US researchers as authors and US samples as source of the data. However, on the topic of anal sex, if diversity is the problem, I also made reference to an Australian survey, which I think you've just deleted, despite the high quality of the dataset. And as I told you just now in the talk page of the entry, the data I referenced before, showing high participation in anal sex among gay men, is from Portugal. In my edits about sexual dysfunctions, I made reference to papers not only from the US, but also from the Netherlands and Croatia. To no avail. You deleted all of them. On the subject of the sexual dysfunction edits, for that matter, you should know that just utterring the words "MEDRS" doesn't magically explain anything. You think that by making bombastic accusations alone you're proving your case - but you are not. That's been your failing for quite a while - you want to tell me my edits violate the guidelines, without saying how. Which is quite a passive-aggressive way of going about things.

Anyway, I have two secondary sources on the issue of sexual dysfunctions. If I add them, will you remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafe87 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * More of the same, as usual. More mischaracterizations, more misunderstandings of how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be built, and a continued failure to even try to understand WP:MEDRS.


 * Like I stated above, discussing matters with you appears to be a waste of time and I will be presenting sources to argue my points. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Now I'm off to waste my day gathering sources. When I return, I will also outline what WP:MEDRS means. Hopefully, the point-by-point explanation will be beneficial. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm back. This was going to take longer, but in addition to the fact that there is not much out there about the prevalence of anal sex among gay couples (or heterosexual couples, for that matter), unless in relation to sexually transmitted infections (particularly HIV), and the fact that I am pressed for time, I decided that there was no point in gathering even more sources. Using the sources that already exist on Wikipedia (including ones I added) in addition to a few additional ones is sufficient enough for what I have to state. As far as the prevalence of anal sex among gay men (or MSM) goes, one of my points has consistently been that studies on the matter differ, which is why we should not be citing individual study after individual study. There are a number of studies we could cite on the matter and they would mostly be U.S.-based. We do not pile study on top of study in our articles. Not usually anyway. And we generally should not cause an article to be U.S.-centric and deserving of a Template:Globalize tag. If the article is not specifically about the U.S., and there is some material on the topic with regard to other countries, U.S. statistic after U.S. statistic is not the way to go. Throwing in primary source statistics from other countries is also not the way to go. Having a few primary sources, especially if the literature is lacking, can be fine. But, generally, we are supposed to look at what tertiary and secondary sources state, especially what secondary sources state, and report on the literature that way.

WP:No original research states, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.
 * Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.  base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.  add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see, which is policy.


 * A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.Book reviews may be found listed under separate sections within a news source or might be embedded within larger news reports. Multiple coverage in book reviews is considered one of the notability criteria for books; book reviews should be considered as supporting sources in articles about books. Avoid using book reviews as reliable sources for the topics covered in the book; a book review is intended to be an independent review of the book, the author and related writing issues than be considered a secondary source for the topics covered within the book.

All of that is why secondary sources are preferred.

One of my other points about covering anal sex in the Gay sexual practices article is that the sexual practices of gay men are varied, far more varied than the average person thinks, and that the article should not be mostly about anal sex. To this point, I've also noted that anal sex is generally one of the least practiced and/or least favored sexual activities among gay men and other MSM (men who have sex with men). Actually, since the MSM category is broader than the gay male category, there are some higher prevalence numbers for anal sex among MSM than there are for anal sex among the gay male category, but anal sex has consistently been cited as one of the least practiced sexual activities among heterosexual, gay male and lesbian couples. Despite Rafe87's assertions, I have not used the sources to assert that most gay men don't have anal sex, and I have certainly never stated that gay men don't have anal sex. If one reads the entire discussion at the Gay sexual practices article talk page, one should see that I stated a number of concerns about Rafe87's additions. '''I have not doubted that many gay men or other MSM have tried anal sex or engage in anal sex on a regular basis. Having tried anal sex, whether once or twice, or significantly more than that, however, is not the same thing as anal sex actually being a continual part of one's sex life.''' When text in the article states that "Many MSM, however, do not engage in anal sex," that is exactly what the text means. It should not be changed to "Many MSM do not frequently engage in anal sex." The first is a clear-cut fact that can be supported by a number of reliable secondary sources. The second is a piece that only applies to some MSM, since many MSM have not engaged in anal sex at all or do so very rarely.

Starting with older data to more recent data. Only a few sources are needed since other sources I looked at either report on the same data and/or essentially state the same thing. But if editors want me to cite more, I will. Revisiting these types of sources, I noticed what I noticed before -- for decades now, the literature has continually placed anal sex behind oral sex and mutual masturbation among gay men. And with most of the data being U.S.-based, British-based and/or Europe-based, we need to be careful not to overstate matters when it comes to generalizations. I did come across a source on Japan data, though; it's included below, and echoes what I've read in the past on the matter. I also looked at this review (Understanding of norms regarding sexual practices among gay men) to see what more I could relay; yes, I have access to the full article.

1. This 2004 Out source, page 76, states, "The perception of many [is that everyone is doing it]. But that's simply not true. A 1994 study conducted by the University of Chicago found that in a sample of gay and bisexual American males, approximately one fifth to one quarter of men surveyed had never engaged in anal sex either as a top or bottom. In the United Kingdom's 2000 National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, only 64% of gay men reported having anal intercourse in the past year. Other American and British studies indicate that as many as one in three gay couples do not have anal sex on a regular basis. In the Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Men, author Bill Brent writes, 'While reports and studies over the past decade on the prevalence of anal sex among gay men vary widely, it's clear that many gay men never engage in it. In short, there's a large number of guys out there who aren't doing it, many more than one would think."

2. This source is a blog, but it's from scholar Justin J. Lehmiller, and he's asking "Do Gay Men’s Sex Lives Match Up With The Stereotypes?" Citing some of the literature, which is also included in the Gay sexual practices article, he states, "A 2011 study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine reported on the sexual behaviors of a national U.S. sample of nearly 25,000 gay and bisexual men recruited online. Participants were asked to describe the details of their most recent sexual event with a male partner. Results indicated that gay men have an incredibly diverse sexual repertoire, with over 1,300 unique combinations of sexual behavior reported. Most participants (63.2%) reported engaging in somewhere between five and nine different sexual activities during their most recent sexual encounter. [...] The single most commonly reported behavior was kissing on the mouth (74.5%), followed closely by oral sex (72.7%) and mutual masturbation (68.4%). Contrary to popular belief, only about one-third of men in the sample reported engaging in anal sex (37.2%). This tells us that the common assumption that 'gay sex' is necessarily anal sex is inaccurate." Again, having a few primary sources, especially if the literature is lacking, can be fine. But we shouldn't include primary source after primary source.

3. This 2012 Sexual Health: A Public Health Perspective: A Public Health Perspective source, from McGraw-Hill Education, page 91, states, "The equation of 'homosexual' with 'anal' sex among men is common among lay and health professionals alike. Yet an Internet survey of over 180,000 MSM across Europe (EMIS, 2011) showed that oral sex was most commonly practised, followed by mutual masturbation, with anal intercourse in third place."

4. This 2014 (reprint) Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century source, from Cengage Learning, page 408, states, "Anal intercourse is more popular among homosexual male couples than among heterosexual couples. However, even among gay men it ranks behind oral sex and mutual masturbation."

5. This 2015 (reprint) Gender: Psychological Perspectives, Sixth Edition source, from Psychology Press (and reporting on older data), page 484, states, "Sex is a very important part of life for gay men, and their relationships typically include a lot of sexual activity, especially early in the relationship [...] Fellatio is an important activity for gay men, but their sex lives are varied, and mutual masturbation is also a common activity. Anal intercourse was never as common an activity as either oral sex or manual stimulation, and its dangers for spreading HIV infection have made it less common than before the appearance of HIV."

6. This 2015 Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity source, from Cengage Learning, page 290, states, "Although many gay men report engaging in anal intercourse, not all gay men do. The NHSLS study found that although the majority of gay men reported engaging in anal intercourse, 20% of gay men did not (Laumann et al., 1994). Receptive anal intercourse is less frequent: an estimated 7% of men age 14 to 94 years reported being a receptive partner during anal intercourse (Reece et al., 2010d)."

7. This 2015 50 Great Myths of Human Sexuality source, from John Wiley & Son, page 105, states, "Though anal sex may be automatically associated with gay men, it is important to remember that not all men who have anal sex are gay (they may identify as bisexual or even heterosexual but occasionally have sex with another man) and not all gay men have anal sex. Research indicates that 2–10% of males in the United States have had a same-sex adult sexual experience, but only a small minority regularly engages in receptive intercourse [...] It is estimated that approximately half to at most two-thirds of sexually active men who have sex with men in the United States regularly engage in receptive anal intercourse [...]. The consensus of most researchers is that roughly 1% to at most 1.5% of adult males (or approximately 1 million men in the United States) regularly practices receptive anal sex." And regarding what this source states, take note that it is sometimes important to observe whether sources are talking about being the penetrative or receptive partner, or both. 8. This 2015 Beyond Common Sense: Sexuality And Gender In Contemporary Japan source, from Routledge, page 112, states, "That HIV spreads comparatively slowly within gay circles in Japan is most likely due to two factors: many gay men do not or very rarely have sex with other men, i.e. have sex mostly or exclusively with themselves, and sexual practices among gay men tend to be limited to mutual masturbation and oral sex rather than anal sex."

Rafe87 complained that I reverted most of his "Sexual problems and health risks" material. When looking at that material, I see medical assertions, some strong ones too, based on primary sources. This primary source that was used even states, "Prevalence studies about men's sexual problems are mostly focused on heterosexual samples and little is known about the frequency of sexual problems and associated distress in gay men. This study is aimed at assessing and comparing the frequency of self-perceived sexual problems in gay and heterosexual men, and associated distress." The section also gives WP:Undue weight to a Dutch survey.

There are very valid reasons why we should not be relying so heavily on primary sources for medical content:

Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field. If material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources – the secondary sources should be used. Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources.

Findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as original, primary research is reported, before the scientific community has analyzed and commented on the results. Therefore, such sources should generally be entirely omitted (see recentism). Determining weight of studies generally requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on such sources). If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large RCTs with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study:

Given time a review will be published, and the primary sources should preferably be exchanged for the review. Using secondary sources then allows facts to be stated with greater reliability [...] If no reviews on the subject are published in a reasonable amount of time, then the content and primary source should be removed. A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field [...] is that they are often not replicable, and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content. Further, the fact that a claim is published in a refereed journal need not make it true. Even well-designed randomized experiments will occasionally (with low probability) produce spurious results. Experiments and studies can produce flawed results or even fall victim to deliberate fraud (e.g. the Retracted article on dopaminergic neurotoxicity of MDMA and the Schön scandal.)

I ask that, when replying, no one cuts in between this long post of mine. The post goes together and I don't want any confusion by an editor's post being in between what I stated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration request: Deletion of sourced content motivated by personality disagreements 2
The complaints are the same as before, since they have not been addressed in all these months by the Wikiproject. I'm also expanding my complaints against her to the entry Anal sex, where User talk:Flyer22 Reborn is also taking her temper tantrum against me and the reliable sources I use. She also straight away insulted me, saying I'm POV pushing, without even explaining HOW. As long as the board refuses to address the problem, it won't be go away, as Fly is beyond reasoning. Rafe87 (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Wikipedia user
I found an old conversation on Template talk:Infobox Wikipedia user about the gender field. I mentioned that pronouns should be included, too. Just thought I would notify you here. = paul2520 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on this RfC on Donald Trump regarding LGBT rights
Please comment here. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move
I have suggested that Recognition of same-sex unions in Germany move to Same-sex marriage in Germany. Discussion. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

BLP/ Flagging articles with LGBT project.
I'd be grateful for some opinions about flagging talk pages of articles on living persons with the WP LGBT project where the subjects have not 'come out' as having LGBT lifestyles. I would like to have opinions as to whether such LGBT flagging can be used without transgressing WP:BLP, where the subject has not admitted to leading an LGBT lifestyle. I've recently noted two examples amongst UK current/former politicians - but there may be more. I would be glad for opinions. --Smerus (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keith Vaz. Talkpage flagged with "WikiProject LGBT studies / Person". Vaz has been accused of going out with male escorts according to the article (with citations given). However these accusations have not been proved, nor apparently has Vaz made any response to them one way or the other. This seems to me clearly to violate WP:BLP.
 * Michael Portillo. Portillo gave a newspaper interview in 2010 where he admitted having homosexual experiences when younger. This is mentioned in the article and cited. Apparently he has never made any other comments on this topic. An editor recently sought to flag the article with "WikiProject LGBT studies". I contested this and our discussion can be seen on the Portillo talkpage. This seems to me to violate WP:BLP by drawing WP:UNDUE attention to Portillo's interview admission - really a form of WP:COATRACKING - and thereby distorting what should be a neutral, NPOV biography.

BLP/N use of description "trans-exclusionary radical feminists"

 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

Feedback request: This is a long discussion already. It is worth highlighting in just the opening statement there are unusual claims made about "transgender editors", which to date have no substantiation (because logically they cannot be substantiated) and have not been removed, emphasis mine:
 * ''When this is pointed out, there is usually push-back from a transgender editor or an editor who agrees with labeling these people as TERFs.
 * ''When editors say that calling people TERFs or transphobic in Wikipedia's voice are WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:LABEL violations, transgender editors or other editors who agree with labeling these people as TERFs or transphobic say that the sourcing for the "TERF" or "transphobic" wording is strong.
 * ''When this is pointed out, transgender editors or other editors say the the opposing side has less weight and they prioritize American sources over British sources because they say that TERF ideology is stronger in Britain.

I think this sets an interesting precedent for Wikipedia, especially if in practice nobody is prepared to take action to remove or correct unsourced claims about all transgender Wikipedians. Anyone care to correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick about what is meant by these words? I believe this is very similar to what a person would write if they are promoting a "trans ideology" exists for all trans people, similar to how most proponents of a "gay agenda" honestly believe there is a conspiracy between all homosexuals.

As a courtesy:.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)