Jump to content

Talk:Homosexuality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.21.96.44 (talk) at 23:36, 31 May 2019 (→Homosexuality is not romantic attraction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleHomosexuality was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 5, 2006Good article nomineeListed
August 2, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 9, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
January 26, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Vital article

References

Genes linked to homosexuality discovered by scientists

Genes linked to homosexuality discovered by scientists - [1]. Its a good article and source. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is behind a paywall. If we could link to the actual published study, it might merit a brief mention, but I wouldn't get too excited at this stage. One study is but one study. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So try to find that study. I dont think it is hard. 46.70.113.190 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, IP, genes fall under the WP:MEDRS guideline. Read that guideline's WP:MEDPRI and WP:MEDASSESS sections. Per those sections, we should not be adding the material you are citing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, not only is this behind a paywall but it is a single source. I would not suggest weighing in on a controversial topic based on a single news article, whose conclusions are potentially subjective. Citing the study itself is insufficient since we always favour reliable secondary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). PhysicsSean (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The paper being discussed in scientific american is PMID 29217827; it is a primary source and we will not be generating content based on it. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of such studies can vary.[2] 92.40.156.85 (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Studies of abuse

On the matter of scientific studies of causal factors such as sexual abuse in youth?

"Adolescent boys, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual than peers who had not been abused." -William C. Holmes, M.D. and Gail B. Slap, M.D., Journal of the American Medical Association 1998.ref
Also should be noted are non-sexual forms of abuse such as violence in the home as contributing to homosexuality, not just sexual abuse.-Inowen (nlfte) 23:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Inowen: Conservapedia is not a reliable source. Moreover, there is a causal order issue; do queer children get abuse more because of their queerness, or does the abuse contribute to their queerness? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conservapedia has a page to document the simple idea of sex abuse as related to homosexuality, something that should have also been explored here (there is some treatment on a subpage which is sort of buried); the argument that the typical Conservapedian would say is that gay activists are in force on Wikipedia, and act as a lobby, and for political reasons brush away theories connecting homosexuality to sexual abuse, physical violence, and other environmental factors. To Conservapedia's credit, they've published a little page and it cites JAMA; to Conservapedia's discredit they have not yet developed a document, even as an outline, on the connection between physical violence and homosexuality; certainly there must be some anecdotal corroboration. Inowen (nlfte) 04:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Inowen: The idea that sexual abuse causes homosexuality is not widely held and WP:FRINGE from what I can tell. As such, it does not get included as doing so would be WP:UNDUE.
As for the cabal of queer activists, I can neither confirm not deny our existence. But suggesting that other editors are against you for political purposes is not looked kindly upon here. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: The idea that abuse is a factor is not fringe; the few studies show a deep correlation. The other side proposes the idea that God made gays gay in the genetic code which is actual fringe. If the idea is that there is no God anyway, then that's injecting atheism into the argument and connecting homosexual politics with atheism. -Inowen (nlfte) 21:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Inowen: I don't follow. The mainstream view of homosexuality is that it is not a lifestyle choice, but rather a more fundamental way of being and that it is unclear why some people are gay. One hypothesis is the "gay gene(s)" hypothesis. There's the birth order hypothesis and hormone hypothesis. No mention of any gods as scientific hypothesis cannot address non-empirical claims. But, as far as I understand it, the idea that sexual abuse is a primary (or even significant) causal factor in homosexuality is not a widely held view (i.e., fringe). The WP:BURDEN is on you to show otherwise. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But these are all fringe theories cloaked in science-like theorizing and jargon. Abuse is a more likely "mainstream" "empirical" "widely-held" cause.-Inowen (nlfte) 21:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not all fringe theories. These are the theories reliable sources talk about and that we talk about per WP:WEIGHT. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say they are not fringe theories. You say these theories have reliable sources. Has there been some check on whether these theories are not fringe, and are from reliable sources? There are credentialled researchers who propose outlandish ideas as theoretical fact all the time, ideas like gay genes are real and there is no God and homosexuality is normal are two of them.-Inowen (nlfte) 01:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say. This can indeed be frustrating when You Alone know The Truth™ that the sources are wrong...but alas, Wikipedia can only say what reliable sources verify. -sche (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to question a particular source, do so. But POV pushing is a waste of everyone's time EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusal of POV pushing is a kind of attack. Please don't take the rules in your own hands, report me to authorities. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Inowen: The term POV pushing here is not an attack, it's merely a description of Talk page behavior by an editor (you) who exhibits a pattern of adhering to a certain point of view, rather than discussing what the sources say. Everyone has biases of some sort, some more on certain issues than others. Wikipedia editors are expected ignore their own biases where they exist, and hew closely to what reliable sources have to say on a topic. Where reliable sources are not in agreement, we report that, with attribution to differing viewpoints, in proportion to the support of each. You can read about Neutral Point of View (one of Wikipedia's core policies) here. POV pushing is a type of tendentious editing, and you can read about that here.
Finally, editors are expected to be here to improve the encyclopedia, and when using the Talk page, to be discussing specific improvements to the article. Some of your comments on Talk pages make it sound like you may be just wanting to talk about the topic in general; for example, when you said, "ideas like gay genes are real and there is no God and homosexuality is normal are two of them." That just sounds like a general rant about what you consider outlandish or unacceptable in the world, and while it gives a pretty clear indication on where you stand on certain things, it's hard to discern any specific suggestion you are making for how to improve this article. If you have a concrete suggestion to make about improving it, let's hear it. But if you just want to ask questions, or make points about what you believe about Homosexuality, you can do that at the Wikipedia Reference Desk, but not here. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: The specific comment for the improvement of the article is that there seems to be undue weight given toward evolutionary ideas of gayness rather than environmental. I see there is a separate article on environmental and that it can use some work, one of the things it needs is the unburying of the section on abuse. I appreciate the tone you are taking, but consider the possibility that the one who self identifies as a genderqueer atheist/agnostic just called you to intervene here on his behalf; that would completely invalidate everything you have said here above, (even though it paraphrases standard reference to policy) as you are acting as an agent for the other party. The comment you quote "ideas like 'gay genes are real' and 'there is no God and homosexuality is normal' are two of them" would be better written with quotes around the elements as I have just done. What I was saying is that the idea that 'any unusual behavior such as x must have a genetic origin' is outlandish and should be called "fringe." Also any idea where 'behavior x is permissable because there is no God' is injecting atheism and demanding that all articles honor atheist point of view. You might say 'atheist point of view is great' and you might want to disclose that you feel that way here. "POV pushing" is an accusation and seems like a kind of attack; it naturally goes both ways, and it would be a shame if Wikipedia honored one form of POV pushing over the other. Inowen (nlfte) 02:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Inowen: I guess I wasn't clear, sorry; by "specific improvement", I meant a clear and specific description so that one can see exactly what change you are proposing, word-for-word. So, either paired BEFORE and AFTER snippets, or else something like: "In Section 'Section name' paragraph <number>, remove the text that says, 'Text to remove...' and add 'Some replacement text...' instead, followed by these references: 'citation one, citation two' ."
I understand very well what you believe is outlandish or fringe, you stated it quite clearly in your "The other side proposes..." statement, above. I'll say this one more time, but after this we really have to get back to specific ways to improve the article. What we believe as editors about a topic does not count and has no place in Wikipedia articles. Everything that is added to a Wikipedia article must be verifiable in reliable sources which we provide in citations with author, title, page number and more, so that anyone who reads the article can go to the exact page of the reference we cite, to verify that the assertion made in the article is not just the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, but in fact backed up by that particular source on that particular page. In a nutshell, that's how everything works here, and to be a successful editor, you have to understand that paradigm, and work within it.
If you believe that someone is "injecting atheism and demanding that all articles honor atheist point of view" that would indeed be POV pushing, and may be raised on the User talk page of the editor concerned; you're welcome to raise that on my Talk page if you think that is an issue with me. But article Talk pages are dedicated to how to improve the article, and this discussion has already strayed too long on aspects of user behavior, which, if that topic needs to continue, should be confined to User talk pages.
Can we now please get back to what this Talk page is about? If you can make a concrete suggestion of how to improve this article, I'm happy to respond and take part. If you have general questions or comments about Homosexuality, please raise that at the Reference desk. If you want to ask general questions about editing Wikipedia, try the Teahouse. If you think there are groups of activists at Wikipedia with an agenda to push on any topic and have evidence to back it up, try the Teahouse to start, and they will advise you further. However, all further comments on this page should be about improving this article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019

Legend for image File:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality 2013.svg has incorrect colors. Therefore change [[File:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality 2013.svg|thumb|right|2013 Pew Global Research Poll: Should homosexuality be accepted in society? Percentage of responders that answered ''accept'': {{legend|#b90080|81% – 90%}} {{legend|#640091|71% – 80%}} {{legend|#6400ff|61% – 70%}} {{legend|#419bb9|51% – 60%}} {{legend|#005a00|41% – 50%}} {{legend|#007d55|31% – 40%}} {{legend|#7d7d55|21% – 30%}} {{legend|#7d5555|11% – 20%}} {{legend|#4b001d|1% – 10%}} {{legend|#c0c0c0|No data}}]]
to
[[File:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality 2013.svg|thumb|right|2013 Pew Global Research Poll: Should homosexuality be accepted in society? Percentage of responders that answered ''accept'': {{legend|#005075|81% - 90%}} {{legend|#009AE1|71% - 80%}} {{legend|#72C3ED|61% - 70%}} {{legend|#A3D7F4|51% - 60%}} {{legend|#FFB4AF|41% - 50%}} {{legend|#FF8E86|31% - 40%}} {{legend|#FF584C|21% - 30%}} {{legend|#FF1100|11% - 20%}} {{legend|#AD0C00|1% - 10%}} {{legend|#E0E0E0|No data}}]] Then the legend should be correct 86.136.211.157 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks! – Þjarkur (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality is not romantic attraction

The article here states that homosexuality is the romantic and sexual attraction to the same sex. This is incorrect. Homosexuality is only the sexual attraction to the same sex, romantic attraction to the same sex is homoromanticism. Being that you don't have to be homosexual to be homoromantic, this is not an accurate definition of the word. Let's fix it. 4/5/2019 Flower333Bed (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the APA disagrees with you.- MrX 🖋 16:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Homoromantic" or "homoromanticism" is a term mainly used by asexual people and in reference to asexual people. And it's used by asexual people and in reference to asexual people to express same-sex attraction without an emphasis on sexual attraction. Also, romantic attraction is usually intertwined with sexual attraction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And either way, "homoromantic" or "homoromanticism" is a neologism. See WP:NEO and MOS:NEO. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People forget Homosexual is a neologism also, the word is a greek / latin hybrid. see https://www.etymonline.com/word/homosexual — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.96.44 (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Neologism article currently states "is a relatively recent or isolated term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been fully accepted into mainstream language." WP:NEO and MOS:NEO echo this. In what way do you think that "homosexual" fits that criteria after all these years? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. How long before a neologism in no longer a neologism?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexuality&oldid=899730296"