Talk:Homosexuality

Is romance dead?!

A recent edit removed the part about homosexuality involving a romantic as well as sexual attraction. I have no idea why this was done. It's quite easy to find reliable sources, particularly high-quality academic ones, which include romance and affection. [1] Does anyone oppose restoring it? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I restored it. It's a completely unjustified removal with no need to discuss. Teammm ^TM 21:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing on Wikipedia involving removal or addition of content "with no need to discuss". I have provided a clear reasoning and if there are sources, provide them. At the moment this is undue weight and original research.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This has once again been re-added without discussion and therefore I feel inclined to use another revert as no explanation has been offered or anything to demonstrate that romance should be used as an encyclopedic manner in describing sexuality. I do feel that there may well be some sources that can be found and its use in the article may be useful, but not in this manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "last revert". I'm perfectly willing to block someone for edit warring if they make less than 4 reverts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Just going to note that I've made a total of 0 reverts. It would be interesting to see a block for that! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, I would generally require at least one. But in case I wasn't clear, that wasn't directed at you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am really mystified as to why Amadscientist insists that homosexuality excludes "romantic attraction". Isn't this incontrovertible? – MrX 22:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course its not. One small mention from one web source[2] does not mean we add it to the lede. Sexuality is an erotic desire. [3] Introduction page ten.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Love, not romance is better used here. [4] Pg 10.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe that the American Psychological Association might be somewhat authoritative in this matter. By the way, citing a book written 45 years ago really doesn't lend much credence to your argument. – MrX

OK, true about the older reference, but that was only one. And no, the American Psychological Association is not the ONLY authority and should not be held as such.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct, it's not the only authority. However, it's more reliable than most, so we should follow WP:UNDUE by favoring it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with this interpretation of the guideline. Could you explain how you arrived at that?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE talks about the need to put reliable mainstream sources in the forefront, with some mention of minority sources and little to no mention of fringe sources. Later on that pageWikipedia:UNDUE#Good_research, it explicitly talks about scientific articles being more reliable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about favoring a source, just balance between mainsteam academic sources and lesser counter argument sources that should only be given due weight to their own main stream opinion, not whether one source is better than another and therefore should be favored. Strength of RS is based on a number of things and that source is not as strong as many that are available and may not have the same definition.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, authoritative sources on sexual orientation, such as the American Psychological Association (noted above) and the American Psychiatric Association (see here), include "romantic" when it comes to defining sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is discussed this way -- including romantic and/or sexual attraction -- in many academic sources. Flyer22 (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So then we just default to a definition supplied by the American Psychological Association's website and the American Psychiatric Association because they decided to include something that may or may not even be a sexual, erotic asscoation, desire or attraction? No...we don't. This is clearly undue weight just by adding the single descripter of Romantic. I even made the mistake of mentioning love, but that is still not an actual homosexual feeling men can love men and women can love women and not be at all homosexual. Look, the fact is romance has a meaning that is being id not being correctly applied in this manner and I do dispute that this is mainstream academic perception. That is what is important. Not whether or not one community within academia thinks this.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

We default to authoritative sources. Like I told you at #Section break: Somewhat off-topic, "What comes with 'a wider variety of sources' is a wide variety of personal opinions about sexual orientation from whatever author. Editors would cherry-pick their favorite authors, or favorite lines from whatever book, to support any stance they have on sexual orientation. This is why we are supposed to defer to authoritative bodies for this information." Adding the descriptor "romantic" is not undue in the least, per above. And as for romance being connected to sexual feelings... A lot of people report them as connected. When a person says they are "in love" with someone, it usually carries a sexual connotation with it. Otherwise, they'd just state that they love the person...as in "I love my mother." Most people don't state that they are "in love" with their mothers. Flyer22 (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are simply incorrect. We do not default to any single opinion. That is a little outrageous for Wikipedia. We have to balance the information IF there is indeed varying opinion and give it the weight it deserves in mainstream sources. But, again all we are discussing is one web source and a mention of another supposed source without a reference.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, you are incorrect. We go by authoritative sources when it comes to initially defining a topic that has varying views. Other views can be included, as long as they are given due weight. If it was a little outrageous for Wikipedia, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE wouldn't exist. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, it seems like you have studied etymology. If so I'm sure you know that etymology is not always accurate. There are things called misnomers that suggest they mean one thing and mean something else or mean what you think it means plus something else. A great example is antisemitism. Antisemitism literally means anti (against) semitic (middle eastern and sometimes asian origins). The word means discrimination, prejudice or hatred of Jewish people but you would thing it would include all semitic peoples. Homosexuality does include romantic attraction and I'm sure that there are hundreds of sources that could be found to support that. Homosexuality is not only an action (some debate it as an action at all) its a biological based predisposition towards a romantic or sexual attraction to members of one's own sex or gender.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the scientific community agrees with that. In fact I am sure they do not agree with it. I know it is the case with me...but I also know it is not the case with many I have known. We are seriously overlooking the information about bisexuality and how environment does effect such behavior and desire and the are hundreds of sources that discuss this and how even bisexuality can lead some (perhaps not a mjority, but some) bisexuals into a homosexual relationship.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I do not doubt that there are some that believe romanticism is indeed a part of homosexuality, however...I do doubt that this is mainstream in even the scientific community. This is really the first time I am seeing it weighted like this - literally before sexual behavior, erotic desire and attraction. I strongly feel, to even use it in the lede is undue weight to one portion of the scientific community. I am familiar with Byron, Shelly and whole issue of "Greek love' as a literary trope. I am familiar with the Ancient Greek society where the men would commonly write romantic poetry about the beauty of the Olympic athletes. But I would not be for stating this as the basis for use as a term in the lede on this article for a modern interpretaion. I also feel that more sources would certainly be needed to in the body of the article to strengthen such a claim as well as adding some balance to mainstream academic opinion which disgrees, which is lacking here.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Belief dosn't matter. If you go around asking 2,000 scientists "What it is called when 2 women or 2 men are romantically attracted to each other?" I guarantee you the VAST majority of them would say homosexuality. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality and for that matter all other sexual orientations (which is a misnomer) actually are not strictly about sex. They are about attraction and have nothing to do with sex.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Belief doesn't matter, sources do. Attraction is not sex. Agreed, but then romance is not either, but attraction is more an issue to be a homosexual than a "romantic" feeling. Romance is idealized...attraction is raw.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well the problem is that if you remove romance which you say has no relevance than you have to remove sex as well since as I said before sex despite the etymology is not what homosexuality is about. Are you advocating that stance?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not say it has no relevance, I said it was undue weight in the lede. If you take sex out you would be writing about homosapien. As I said, romance is an idealized thought process. It is not actual desire or attraction it is simply a way of looking at something. Romantic is painting a pretty picture of a less beautiful subject. And that seems to be what is happening here. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, this being "really the first time [you are] seeing it weighted like this - literally before sexual behavior, erotic desire and attraction." tells me that you haven't read on this subject as much as you think you have. Romantic attraction is also attraction, by the way, and, as I've stated, is tied to sexual attraction for many people. Even if you aren't American, how are you not familiar with sources such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association...or rather none of their statements on sexual orientation? Flyer22 (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you really just presume to state what level of research or experiance I myself believe to have? That takes a lot of nerve to be so incivil and then to assume or imply I am not American. Please discuss the contribution and not the contributer. That seems to be a major problem for you. You just cannot stop.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did presume it. And I asked you about it. It's not WP:UNCIVIL in the least. And going by the "Section break: Somewhat off-topic" discussion higher up, discussing the contributor instead of the contribution seems to be a major problem with you. Not me. You are the one who initially did it, and can't seem to stop doing it, and now can't handle that it was turned on you. Oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't. That is not accurate at all. The posts I am reading seem very much to be just parroting back a lot of what I say to filibuster.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you did (stating that is quite accurate), and I'm sure that others here would agree that you did. To state that you didn't is ludicrous. You started in about potential POV and motives that I may have (which I don't, by the way), and then went into asserting what you believe to be my POV/motives. You did that before I focused on your visiting Dennis Brown's talk page or questioned your level of knowledge on sexual orientation topics. Nothing to do with parroting or filibuster whatsoever. Flyer22 (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You are obviously not able to comprehend the discussion since what I said was "If you don't show even the mainstream objections or opposing opinion of whatever validity it may have then you would be pushing POV. Not that you are..." But now, I am having a hard time assuming good faith. At some point innacuracy begins to look like something with a purpose.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The only one who isn't comprehending what transpired between us is you. Like I stated, you went from implying that I may have potential POV and motives and then went into asserting what you believe to be my POV/motives. You stated, "You really do want this article to state as indisputable fact what you feel regardless of other mainstream opinion and are indeed pushing POV if you refuse to allow other mainstream opinion with due weight." Just because you added "if" does not change what you were clearly asserting about me. And it certainly does not negate that you were most assuredly focusing on the editor -- me -- not on any particular contribution. And you made yet another personal attack, this time about comprehension. So cut the crap and stop replying to me already. Flyer22 (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Pushing a POV is a contribution issue. Every contribution has an editor behind it. I have not singled you out by name to attack you. However you have used personal information gained by checking "contribution history" to cherry pick information to literally attack me with. I don't think you comprehend the discussion. I don't. If you do not wish me to reply to you, then stop posting things for me to reply to!--Amadscientist (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And you had no reason to think that I was/am pushing a personal POV. I've told you that we are supposed to defer to authoritative sources first and foremost when it comes to defining sexual orientation and why that is, and that doing so is not pushing a POV...except for pushing the POV of deferring to authoritative sources. This is done all the time at scientific articles, and other type of articles, which is why WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE exist. With a username with "scientist" in it, one would think you'd know that. The topic of sexual orientation is a scientific topic. You speak of comprehension, but all of this is something you clearly do not comprehend. And make no mistake about it, you attacked me first. You focused on the contributor due to your personal opinion that POV editing may be behind the editor's insistence of deferring to authoritative sources, which would need to go for others here as well, since they are also deferring to the authoritative sources while you are not. So stating that you didn't single me out by name is silliness. Implying that an editor has a specific POV just because you disagree with deferring to the authoritative sources that are being used is equally silly. Stating that I attacked you by stating that you should ask Dennis Brown a question is sillier. It's funny that you are so sure that I looked at your contribution history when I've already made it known that Dennis Brown and I are acquaintances. As you know, there is a such thing as a watchlist or just checking in on another Wikipedian's talk page from time to time, or often, without one. You don't think I comprehend the discussion. I don't think you do, as well as some other aspects of this topic. Goody. As for replying, keep it coming if you must. Flyer22 (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I struck my above comment out. Not because I don't still stand by most of it, especially the authoritative sources/non-POV aspect, but as part of a truce attempt with Amadscientist. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR… seriously. Amadscientist, you're assuming way too much based on the etymology. “Homosexual” is widely used to discuss same-sex relationships regardless of whether or not they have sex. (And then there's the whole debate about what “sex” is….) Even massresistance.org has the phrase “homosexual romance” on their web site. BTW, that interpretation of the word is also wrong; the Latin “sexus” refers to gender, not intercourse. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  02:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content from "Etimology" section

This edit removed the following sourced content from the page:

The word homosexual is a Greek and Latin hybrid with the first element derived from Greek ὁμός homos, 'same' (not related to the Latin homo, 'man', as in Homo sapiens), thus connoting sexual acts and affections between members of the same sex, including lesbianism.[1] Gay generally refers to male homosexuality, but may be used in a broader sense to refer to all LGBT people. In the context of sexuality, lesbian refers only to female homosexuality. The word "lesbian" is derived from the name of the Greek island Lesbos, where the poet Sappho wrote largely about her emotional relationships with young women.[2][3]

1. "Etymology of Homosexuality", University of Waterloo, retrieved 2007-09-07
2. Marguerite Johnson, Terry Ryan: Sexuality in Greek and Roman society and literature: a sourcebook p.4
3. "Lesbian | Define Lesbian at Dictionary.com". Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved 2010-08-24.

The edit summary was: "Removing some information with no references. Some dead links to disputed content and moved some to talkpage for discussion. Some rearranging and some deletion of content without references" (emphasis mine)

Is this vandalism?--В и к и T 22:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It would not be civil to answer that. Instead, I will suggest that it was a nonconstructive edit that should be undone. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The sourced information was merely moved to a more appropriate location. The deleted information was not RS. I wouldn't start edit warring at the suggestion of others.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No, a quick search confirms that information was lost. In particular, the Greek/Latin hybrid thing is gone, even though there is absolutely no controversy or doubt about it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Sappho and lesbian information is still there. Yes the Greek/Latin hybrid "thing" requires a source that is RS and the true origin is in the section.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's very, very easily sourced, to the point where it would have been better to find a citation instead of removing it. Here's a citation: http://books.google.com/books?id=WcyqvWfJnyYC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=homosexuality+greek+latin+hybrid&#v=onepage&q=homosexuality%20greek%20latin%20hybrid&f=false I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is best to read what the sources actually say about that...even in the source you just provided it makes it clear this is controversial and is a modern invention. It is not a true etymology. For one thing, it's original use was in German.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The term came to English from the original German, but the German was itself from a hybrid of Greek and Latin. We can mention the German part, but we don't need to. It serves to explain the awkward composite word (normal for German) but says nothing about the Greek and Latin roots. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's OR. We do need to mention the german part. The point is that if you state that the word is derived from Greek and Latin terms it gives the impression that the term has ancient origins like most words with such roots. The implication is innaccurate. And I am not even sure it can really be said that is how the term was derived by the German author.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's neither OR nor does it follow. Like "television", it's a modern word that weirdly combines Latin and Greek. This very combination shows its modernity. I don't particularly object to mentioning that it was first coined in German, but it's not particularly necessary, either. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It is necessary as it was the first use and it was not an english expression or term. We know how the word is derived and Wikipedia should not be used to make innaccurate claims. The controversy about the Latin/Greek origin is precisely why it is best not to use.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as this is of no consequence to the article at hand, I recommend removing the section entirely and leaving this to Wiktionary. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  23:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that if others agree.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree, based on the precedent of Television. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As always, one bad example does not justify another one. But in the case of television, the etymology is at least non-obvious and not directly descriptive. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  23:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd propose deleting the section when the information contained is proper and sourced. The only part in question here is the passage at the top of this discussion. All of that information is cited as well with sufficient sources, including the one added by I'm StillStanding (24/7). There's no controversy about the Latin/Greek origin besides what you've invented here and its original use in German is already explained in detail within the section. So, I'm not seeing where anything you two said is contentious material or left out. Teammm ^TM 05:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It was a suggested compromise. Its probably not going to happen but the source provided by the other editor shows a controversy. Did you read it? The fact is, the term is "Notorious" because it is a Greek/Latin modern hybrid with no actual Greek or Latin equivalent. Now...if we actally worded it in that manner along with the German origin I would be all for it, but the other editor wants to make this cut and dry when it is not.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "television" is well-known for being a Greek/Latin hybrid, but that doesn't mean there were TV's in ancient Rome. In short, your argument is based on a false premise and hold no weight. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not based on a false premise. Actually based on the very source you provided.

The word homosexuality (notoriously a Greek/Latin hybrid of modern invention) has no Greek or Latin equivalent. _{Marriage and Family in the Biblical World edited by Ken M. Campbell}

And there is a reason for that. Homosexuality is not a concept the ancient Greek or Romans knew or understood, but that is another subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There sure were a lot of things they didn't understand. In any case, your interpretation of this source is fringe and is attacking a straw man. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, that isn't an interpretation. Its actually paraphrased, and probably a little too closely to the source.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Article does not imply that ancient Greek or Romans used the term "Homosexuality". It only says uncontroversial fact that the word "Homosexuality" is derived from Greek "homos" and Latin "sexus". Do you dispute that?--В и к и T 11:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

^Buku asked my next question. I don't see how you interpret a word's derivation as "the word was used at that time". Teammm ^TM 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to give myself some time away from the discussion to be sure others had time to chime in, but I am glad Teamm came to the table and I appreciate the question asked by Buku. The history of the term "Homosexual" should be described with accuracy. And, while it currently has a good deal of the proper context the term modern is missing as well as some indication of it's "invention" and does indeed give the impression that the word itself has roots in the ancient languages being ascribed to it. This is false of course, and we need to be sure and make it clear that the Greek and Romans did not actually have any such word. This detail is important to be sure and seperate other such historic terms that do have their roots in these languages. The fact that the article does not state the modern invention is misleading for no reason when all sources are clear, yet, for somereason we have chosen to omit it believing that the following text will clarify. It actually does not as the text is still a little ambiguous. The prose states "The first known appearance..". This leads the reader to simply believe there may yet be earlier writings yet discovered. But we do know that the term was invented by a german author.[5][6][7][8][9] There is indeed some controversy surrounding the term. For one, while we do know when the term was coined, many still argue that the concept has been around for some time.[10] While this is true from at least the renaissance period, writings of the period have dealt with the concept of same sex love and attraction by using the terms "Greek love", "Socratic love" or "Plutonic love" as almost a code.[11] The importance of the developement of the modern term is an important part of LGBT studies and I feel we do a diservice by not including some portion of the accurate origins. I will leave this up to editors. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Bold rearrangement

A recent edit that rearranged the sections has been reverted as needing disussion and a formed consensus. What articles are these changes being based on and why. Why would etymology and history not be at the beginning?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Byelf2007 is always making those kinds of edits. See User talk:Byelf2007#Your editing, and other comments in other sections on his talk page about it. He almost always puts the etymology and history sections farther down. Perhaps you want to ask him to comment here about that? 216.119.145.148 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of criticism of homosexuality

I'm interested in discussing and laying out the various criticism of homosexuality. I see no such thing here. Can we get something going of the various philisophical, socioligical, and religious reasons to condemn it? I'm not here to promote any particular perspective. -- Frotz(talk) 08:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• The article where this is discussed is Societal attitudes toward homosexuality which was split off from the main article due to size. Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Would you consider a redirect of Criticism of homosexuality to Societal attitudes toward homosexuality appropriate? -- Frotz(talk) 10:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing ways to improve an article, NOT for discussing the topic of the article. Take that conversation elsewhere. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please... I'm trying to figure out how to satisfy someone who's looking for something that objectively presents criticism of homosexuality because plugging that phrase into the search box doesn't yield anything helpful. -- Frotz(talk) 23:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not a discussion of the subject alone but of the article itself as the discussion was about a criticism section in the article. However, it should be noted that the general rule of thumb is to not have a seperate section for criticism but to have such criticism spread out through the article in related sections, not lumped together. Adding a redirect would be POV in my opinion as the artilce you wish to redirect is not a criticism article but a summary of different attitudes to homosexuality, which in many cases is an accepted practice or not something you could call criticism.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)