Revision as of 02:19, 22 April 2006 editCleduc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,006 edits →Why was the illustration change reverted?: clarify closing argument← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:03, 21 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,799,732 editsm →top: Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings: -Start, keep B; cleanupTag: AWB | ||
(407 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
{{ |
{{Not a forum}} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | |||
] | |||
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}} | |||
] | |||
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=}} | |||
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=low|social=yes|ethics=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=}} | |||
}} | |||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== | |||
== Lou blocked for a week, maybe we can now work on improving this article! == | |||
] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. | |||
<small>merging two sections, as they both effectively centre on Lou's continued disruption</small> | |||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 09:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} | |||
Ok, I suggest that we leave the stuff above the stuff above (exccept the discussion on removing the POV tag), and move on with sensible things for the coming week now taht Lou has been banned for a week. ] 03:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== | |||
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-08-30">30 August 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-12-08">8 December 2021</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. | |||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 09:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} | |||
], what do you see as POV points? ] 03:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
== POV blanking of references == | |||
Scientiom is repeatedly blanking material that is referenced, because apparently it does not sit well with his point of view. Please note again that the scope of this article is "Societal attitudes TOWARD homosexuality" but his version of the article is skewing the information and is not giving an honest depiction of the full range of "Societal attitudes TOWARD homosexuality" to be found on planet Earth. "IDON'TLIKEIT" is NOT a valid reason for blanking what the references say. The following information needs to be restored for balance and more points of view: | |||
I have changed Lou's block duration to indefinite due to his total lack of productive edits. He's done nothing but disrupt this article. —]] 03:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Some opponents of the movement, such as ], former executive director of the ], say that gay people are seeking ], not equal rights, and that the movement should not be referred to as a civil rights movement. They argue, for example, that in seeking the right to marry members of the same sex, gay people are seeking a special right for themselves and disregarding the fact that ] and other groups defined by sexual behavior do not have this right either. ] /]/ 12:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Guanaco, so sorry to hear you were desysopped again. ] 02:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
: |
:If the view of one person is of sufficient weight to be "societal", this is going to be a very long article. --] (]) 14:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
:If only one side of the story is allowed to be told and only one point of view is given about a controversial topic, it's going to be a very short article. Long articles are better, and if you cannot recognize this view as "societal" then you do not have an honest definition of "society". ] /]/ 14:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::I don't see the sourcing indicating that it is "societal". Billions of people out there, and we're saying this is Ralph Reed's belief? --] (]) 14:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::No, we didn't say that. Read it again, it says "Some opponents of the movement, such as Ralph Reed". The reference being cited mentions many other similarly worded criticisms from others as well. A wikipedia article on the same subject isn't neutral when one summarily removes all the viewpoints critical of one's own. ] /]/ 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::The reference being cited notes about three folks making similar statements - Trent Lott, Ralph Reed, and the unnamed narrator. And the reference being cited doesn't appear to be a ], it looks to be some ]. And it doesn't appear to be a comment on ], but on ]. So if your argument is that we should have poorly-sourced off-topic commentary because it's against homosexuality, that wouldn't seem to be a winning argument. --] (]) 15:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::The reference is to an academic paper on the same subject of this article, "Societal attitudes toward homosexuality". The paper, while it is expressing a pro-gay rights viewpoint, follows the scholarly requirement of acknowledging the existence of opposing viewpoints and critiquing those viewpoints head-on in their own words, rather than misrepresenting them, or running and hiding and pretending there are no opposing viewpoints. If it had been a paper on the topic of Societal attitudes, but yet it ran and hid from the opposing viewpoints, pretending they didn't exist in society and painted a deceptively favorable, one-sided picture, it would have deserved an F and been useless for scholarly purposes. A wikipedia article on the controversial subject of Societal attitudes should be at least as scholarly and twice as neutral. ] /]/ 16:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::One of the problems is that homosexuality, as its contemporary name makes it clear, is a kind of sexuality, rather than an ideological viewpoint. People who advocate tolerant/liberal/libertarian views toward human sexuality consistently tend to be more accepting of people in sexual minorities, and their causes (that are generally held when people in those sexual minorities are open about their status, and proud of that). Most causes advocated by sexual minorities makes the perfect sense for almost everybody in sexual minorities, but the fact that one is part of a sexual minority won't mean this person will have libertarian, liberal, tolerant or even non-biased/accurate views of people of its own sexual minority, let alone all others. We have a ton of different political and ideological objectives related to our own particular and diverse views, experiences and issues, of which same-sex marriage legalization is just one of them (because it is becoming each day of a stronger common sense that straight love isn't superior to other kinds of love, and because we don't say in our Constitutions that people get married to have biological children). The fact that a person criticizes same-sex marriage or other causes by a mainstream American conservative movement doesn't, at least in theory, mean that this person generalizes it to all points-of-view and causes of, say, liberal Western gay people. It is conservatives themselves that try all the time to make the construct that their opposition to same-sex marriage isn't an opposition to legal same-sex love (if it is true or not, not the business of Wikipedians as far as this article goes). (Here in Brazil, going as far as to say that homophobia does not exist in the way "we paint it" in Brazil or other contemporary Western societies and we are just sick Marxist militants pushing our own Gramscist agenda to make Christians look bad and end freedom of speech painting ourselves as oppressed victims... talk about drama .) ] (]) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Any objection against archieving pretty much everything, and start fresh? ] 04:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
* Good idea. ] 04:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
* I would agree as well, though as Lou is not indefinitely blocked from this page yet I wouldn't hold my breath for a complete 'fresh start'. --]<sup>]</sup> 14:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Done, if someone objects, please undo. ] 01:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Article being rewritten from a discernible Point-of-View == | |||
== POV points == | |||
The entire language of this article is being rewritten from a discernible Point of View that will be difficult for probably at least 95% of people to identify with. Language written from a particular point-of-view is forbidden by the NPOV policy. Articles about controversial subjects are required to be neutral since many people feel strongly on both sides of the controversy. For these reasons, I will be adding a POV check to the article. ] /]/ 12:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
(note to archivers: cut ''above'' this line 8-) | |||
:It seems generally neutral to me. I'm removing the template. ] (]) 18:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Uhh NO RObotNinjaParrot, it is so definitively over the edge for the pro homosexuality that this article should be labeled how we make any who differs our opinion on Gays into pariahs, haters or fools, even a note to how psychology changed its definition from Mental Disorder to acceptable behavior in modern society | |||
This is totally a POV article and as such is endemic in the Misplaced Pages compendiu. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
I wanted to put some comments out here regarding the POV issue, separate from the discussions above tangled up with Lou's actions. Hopefully this can be a new starting point for more ongoing work. | |||
== Use of ] == | |||
First of all, I'd like to thank everyone who's been working on this over the last few months. As I have said before, the article is much more neutral and balanced, better referenced, etc. Accomplishing this much improvement in the face of the damage being done is impressive positive commentary on many people's patience and committment to making positive contributions. | |||
This file shows a map with color encodings of the result of a formula. The formula is uncited, and appears to the the ] of a Misplaced Pages contributor. What ] says that this particular set of indices is a good measure of the "Status of gay persons" Who says that some indices are to be rated only one-third as much as others? Also, who chose the particular moment in time to rate these issues along these various scales? And who says what level of the sum of these indices represents "not accepted" vs "evolving" vs "integrated"? For the matter of that, where are the sources that even give the values of the indices. I prefer to ] that these have been quoted accurately, but giving the actual sources might show up reliability issues. Even assuming that the values of the indices have been accurately used in creating this graphic, choosing this particular combination is a violation of ] unless there is a cited source for the formula, and if there is that source should be properly named. I have therefore removed the image and its caption from the article. ] ] 23:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
I've said this before, but might as well do so again to put this in context. My personal views in many areas are mainstream conservative, with a dash of libertarian (little-l). Gay rights are not an issue I'm conservative on; it's never bothered me personally, and the political arguments and religious arguments never swayed me. However, I do care that the opinions of people who I otherwise somewhat to largely agree with be accurately represented here. | |||
:Here is the map in question. | |||
] | |||
{{clear}} | |||
:In my view, it can't be used. It's original research and violates ]. If there is an authoritative source that has already produced such a map, then I think that would be worth considering.- ]] 23:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Seems like a clear case of ] and ] to me. It appears to depend on an index calculation that was invented by the map author and isn't well-defined anyway. And don't say ] - this is a case where the image does "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". It should be removed. - ] (]) 23:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
Attempting to take a long step back and assess where things are now, my 500 meter view is that the article remains evasive about what is essentially the one major sticking point in polite discussion between reasonable conservative and reasonable liberal populations in the US, the question of gay marriage. I think that this is the one remaining serious hot button issue... gay adoption doesn't seem to have legs as a mainstream issue, nor gay priests, outside of the specific congregations where support is too down the middle. It's down to the definition of marriage. The article sort of skips past the question in the second section without really addressing it, and comes back to it briefly in the Statistics section at the end. This issue raises very strong feelings on both sides, and has identified a rift across society in people's personal ideas about what defines a marriage and who sets that definition, etc. | |||
:::I removed it, I has since been restored by ], who seems to be a relatively new editor. ] ] 23:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Relatively new is putting it mildly. All of his edits are related to adding this map to articles. - ] (]) 23:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::I've requested page protection so that this can be sorted out. - ]] 23:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
Hi, I just added all the sources regarding the map. It has actually already been published by a European newspaper, OneEurope. It is a well-known journal that could be considered authoritative source. http://one-europe.info/ <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
It also doesn't address at all that I see now the controversy over the military's Don't ask Don't tell policy, which has mysteriously been essentially waived due to manpower requirements in the Iraq war but remains "on the books" as it were. | |||
:The sources you cite on the image description page seem to be sources for the individual indices. Can you provide a precise source for the formula, and for the scale used to rate countries under it? A specific page on one-europe.info or wherever the source of the formula can be found, please? The image does not seem to appear on the main page of that site at this moment. ] ] 00:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Actually it does, on the main page there is a section there that auto-rotates 4 images, of which if this is one. From there, te specific article is at http://one-europe.info/gay-rights-a-long-story-of-struggles ] (]) 00:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::{{ec}} I have now found . It seems that <s>you are</s> ] is the author of the article, and that although the map is used, no discussion of the formula behind it is included. Have I missed anything? ] ] 00:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Well...it was a blog dated today for one. I have removed it. Now, there are still many other sources used on the image.--] (]) 00:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::So far as i can see, each of those sources supports ONE of the indices that the map is reporting a sum of. None of them supports combining that particular set of data according to that particular formula. ] ] 02:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::Hmmmm. Not sure if that is against policy or guidelines exactly. I seem to remember my bringing up a similar question on an OWS graphic that I believed to be OR and synth at one time and the prevailing consensus was that it was not inappropriate. I would have to re-check that graphic and discussion to be sure, but from what you said here it is that an index used to state one fact was combined with another index (and more) to create the colored graphic image. But you also have other concerns. On the face of it, it does sound like synthesis, but we are discussing an image and not a claim in prose that combines facts to create a new fact.--] (]) 03:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::OneEurope is a student magazine and Alessandro, who I presume is the user who uploaded the map here, is a university student. This is just a blog post by a college kid. We should not be using his novel ranking system whether he gives out his formula or not.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 04:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::I have to agree. Mr. Siegel seems to have this right on the nose from everything I can see and the only index supported seems to be the HDI. I have no clue what the editor was attempting other than to somehow add the sums together in a less than academic manner....well OK...in no apparent manner at all. I have no clue what is being attempted here and it does look very much like original research.--] (]) 04:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::<sub>One of the sources used was a Misplaced Pages article, ].--] (]) 04:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)</sub> | |||
*I've just full protected for three days per . ] (]) 01:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
*:Frankly i don't think that was needed, ]. The reverts have stopped, and the users favoring use of the map seem to be engaging with those opposing it. Please reverse protection. ] ] 02:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, I think protection has served its purpose by now, so I'll unprotect early. ] (]) 15:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Whether or not this map violates any policy, it tells a fuzzy story based on an equation that gives mathematical precision but that doesn't make it accurate. It shouldn't be in here. --] (]) 06:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Philippines == | |||
I want to keep reviewing the overall balance; I feel like mainstream conservative objections to gay rights are still not quite fairly addressed outside those points, but a lot of the issue is tangled up in specifics of arguments with absent editor. I think that a case can be made for more specifics beyond those major ones, and for general tone. I would like a couple of days of calm to assess and then start discussing that. | |||
An editor has repeatedly tried to delete a reference to relative social acceptance of homosexuality in the Philippines, citing as a reference showing that it's not. However, our information as presented is sourced, and how the country votes at the UN would be a reflection of governmental, not societal, views. I invite the editor to try to make the case here and gain consensus before attempting to repeat the edit. --] (]) 00:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
Regarding the POV tag; I have no intention of using it as a bludgeon or weapon in the debate. I feel that there are still unresolved issues, and think the tag is a useful way of indicating that. I'd ask that other contributors agree to leave it there for the time being, with my pledge that seeking consensus is my goal, that I feel that cooperation is extremely likely to work here, and that as we approach it I'll support it going away. | |||
==No mention of ILGA?== | |||
It will probably take a little while to unwind the article from the arguments brought on by absent editor; I know that I am still seeing sections of it mentally framed by the various edit and revert wars and arguments here, and that's not really the ultimate goal or fair to the article, or other editors. But to hazard a guess, we're all there in some form or another, so let's be extra-polite for a few days while we decompress from that. | |||
I don't want to get into any extended debate, but it seems surprising that the "Association with child abuse and pedophilia" makes no mention of the significant ] controversies. Many anti-gay activists certainly mention them frequently... ] (]) 17:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
: Agreed. I added hatnotes under a subsection to the main article, which I believe are the subsection on NAMBLA's Misplaced Pages article and on ILGA's Misplaced Pages article. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Israel == | |||
Thanks. ] 07:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Pew oversample Arabs in their survey of Israel. Quote from the (page 13): "Multi-stage cluster sample stratified by Israel’s six districts, urbanity, and socioeconomic status, with an oversample of Arabs," "Sample size: 922 (504 Jews, 406 Arabs, 12 others)." Note that ] is around 75% Jewish, 20% Arab and 5% other. I'm removing Pew data from article. --] (]) 07:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:OK, it's not appropriate to use the percentages in the main text. The survey states "In Israel, where views of homosexuality are mixed, secular Jews are more than twice as likely as those who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox to say homosexuality should be accepted (61% vs. 26%); just 2% of Israeli Muslims share this view." I'd sum that up as "a survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Survey found that acceptance of homosexuality is higher among secular Jews than people who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox" ] (]) 12:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Homosexuality == | |||
:Very good Mr. Herbert and I look forward to your suggestions as a breath of fresh air. Yours, ] 13:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
When considering this issue of homosexuality, I can not seem to find an answer to one of my questions. All living things have the ability of reproduction with the exception of gay individuals, Why? For the lack of a better term... mother nature during the time of creation gave all living things the ability to reproduce to insure the continuation of all things created except gay individuals. That seems to be a contradiction of purpose, why did mother nature exclude homosexuality from all the rest of living things and why hasn't homosexuality become extinct? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Thanks a lot for your insights. I also think the article is at places POV, for the same reasons you mention (And I am a left wing lesbian). I get the impression that you want to focus on US aspects primarily, and I disagree with that and I think it has to be focussed on societies at large. For the rest, I am affraid that everything will continue in a week time, unless the ArbCom has made its decision by that time. ] 15:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Ok, my ideas. Some major points: | |||
# Historical versus modern. (aka, two major sections) | |||
# Cultural relativism. (how to intepret other cultures: own morals verus their morals (and maybe have a clear cut case and discuss that)) | |||
# Different layers. Many cultures have double standards and use different norms for what they condemm in the open and do in the dark. | |||
Some substantial points: | |||
# Equal rights | |||
US section: | |||
# Current debate | |||
##Army | |||
##etc. | |||
] 15:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::This is the english-language wikipedia, and to some degree a focus on the english speaking countries (US, UK, Canada, AUS, NZ) is unavoidable; I think that primarily on the US is stronger than I'm looking for, but more strongly on the US would be a good idea. Gay rights issues seem to have become less controversial in much of the rest of the english speaking world. In terms of the context around the world, no disagreement here - opinions here in the US have varied over time, and in other countries, and seeing both the widely varied other cultural responses and the historical examples are all important. ] 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, this is the english wikipedia, but it is also the '']'' of our time, and many non-native english speakers edit here just because of the reach this language has (see also ]. I think a good solution is to have a seperate section that focusses on the US, so that the additional issues that play in the US can be addressed. ] 01:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::I agree. For the time being, I believe such a section exists. It may be worthwhile to keep in mind the idea of making it a spin-off article if it gets to big, and just including a summary in this article. -] 01:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Deletion of statistics == | |||
:::::However we approach it, I don't want to minimize the other stuff already here in any way. Just making that clear. ] 01:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
As seen and , I have twice reverted ]'s deletion of statistics. Colon v1, who appears to be a ], called the statistics outdated. I stated, "The removed material addresses different demographics, which is important. If any of this is outdated, add sources to show/replace that material." | |||
::::::I didn't think (for the record) that you were going down that road. One major reason I suggested keeping in mind the possibility of a spin-off for the US section is because there is a ''lot'' of scholarship on that area, and another is because this is currently a hot topic here. In other words: There's a LOT to write (especially if you're writing in English) about American attitudes toward homosexuality. -] 04:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Although Colon v1 added material in place of the removed content, Colon v1 has done nothing to replace some of the different demographics that the original content addresses. What proof is there that these statistics are outdated? Old does not always mean outdated. Sometimes, especially when it comes to research on sexual orientation and beliefs about it, the most up-to-date research is old research. ] (]) 06:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Removed for repairs == | |||
:''Retrieved from archive. ] 02:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
Furthermore, a survey from 2011 is not that old, especially in terms of societal attitudes toward homosexuality, and Colon v1 seemed to leave some old content in while removing other old content. I don't see how the content that Colon v1 removed is any less deserving of representation or is irrelevant (). I restored that Colon v1 added; I didn't mean to remove the recent material. ] (]) 07:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
I am bringing in the last para of the intro, since in its present form it is ethnocentric and punitive. I appreciate Ntennis' motives for attempting to balance things, but I think we need to polish this brick a bit more. | |||
== External links modified == | |||
New Version: <blockquote><i>Most of the world's cultures have considered procreative sex within a recognised relationship to be a sexual norm — sometimes exclusively so. Some ]s, especially those influenced by the ], have long considered homosexual acts and relationships undesirable. Throughout the history of the Christian-dominated West, a range of practises have attempted to prevent same-sex sexuality, including execution for offenders.<ref>Crompton, Louis, ''Homosexuality and Civilization'', Harvard University, 2003</ref> Since the 1970s, the dominant culture in the West has become more tolerant of same-sex sexuality between partners of ].{{citation needed}}</i></blockquote> | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
Old version: <blockquote><i>All of the world's cultures have considered procreative sex within a recognised relationship to be a sexual norm, often in parallel with customs that facilitated same-sex relations. Some religious traditions have long considered sodomy undesirable, and, acting through their own institutions or those of the state, have even carried out or supported the ] for those who engage in same-sex sexual behaviour. Since the 1970s, the dominant culture in the West has become more tolerant of same-sex sexuality between partners of ].</i></blockquote> | |||
I have just modified 5 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
Critique of new version: It privileges procreative sex, and it ignores the experience of the other four fifths of the world. ] 00:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618180935/http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit66/bissu2.htm to http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit66/bissu2.htm | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060411090139/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_39/ai_96621265 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_39/ai_96621265 | |||
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/28/sikhguy-050328.html | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929021150/http://www.faithandthecity.org/issues/social/articles/Discussions_on_Dharma%20.shtml to http://www.faithandthecity.org/issues/social/articles/Discussions_on_Dharma%20.shtml | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119045626/http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/ to http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/ | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
:The new version also ignores those (admittedly rare) instances in Christian history where homosexual sex was acceptable-ish. It seems like something like the new version belongs in a section on the Christian west(s), and some brief mention about Christian attitude'''s''' toward homosexuality should be added to the old version. -] 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
::How are the repairs going Haiduc? ] 02:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 04:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::Seems like they're not. Nobody has even attempted to repair the article in over a week. More people have agreed that the article is POV on the discussion page, but nobody has done anything about it. When I try to balance the article I get blocked, but nobody else is even trying. I hope that ArbCom will seriously consider removing the article. The article isn't going to repair itself. ] 02:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::The ArbCom is not dealing with content disputes, only with behaviour. And maybe people are waiting for the time that a reasonable discussion is possible again. ] 03:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::I have been away for 8 days. Are you waiting for an engraved invitation? You agreed that the article is POV. Why not fix it? ] 03:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::To be honest till we are sure that we are not ending up with extreme long discussions on minute aspects on how to insert clear POV aspects. And that time has not yet come. I think most editors are waiting for the ArbCom decision before they are coming back. ] 03:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::I did not read that on the discussion page. Are you communicating using email? ] 03:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
== External links modified == | |||
I, personally, am busy with a) work b) a conference presentation c) another WP project; this is on, but not at the top of, the list of things I am working on. Stepping away and thinking about things often helps get better perspective on fixing them, anyways. If we fix it next month, or the month after, little harm is done compared to fixing it tomorrow. ] 03:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:But what about the readers that are reading it now? If you aren't in a hurry to fix it until next month or the month after, I'll just make a couple of changes until then to remove the POV. If you have other changes in a couple of months that would be great too. ] 03:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Do you ''want'' to get blocked again? ] 03:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Why would you have me blocked for fixing the article when you can't be bothered to? ] 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::Because community consensus has it that your "fix" would make the POV worse, and you know that (even if you disagree with it). ] 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
:::::What is the alternative? We all agree that the article is POV. I am apparently the only one here willing to edit the article. So we can all sit here are stare at eachother or we can correct the article. Since everybody else has mysteriously all decided that they don't care about the reader at the same time, why won't you let ''me'' correct the article? ] 04:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::Several are willing to make improvements, but not with the extended discussions on POV language that you try to insert to the article. ] 04:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I have not seen "several that are willing to make improvements". If you say they exist, that's great. My changes have been rejected, so what are ''your'' suggestions to balance the introduction, reword "same-sex 'marriage'", and to remove the unnecessary obscenities? ] 04:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
I have just modified 14 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
::::You are not the only one here willing to edit the article. You may be the only one willing to actively edit it a whole lot right now at this instance, but that is different from ''nobody else cares about the reader''. Your false sense of urgency on this matter is either self-deception on your part or part of a ploy to make your actions seem more reasonable. | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021173315/http://equalitydelaware.org/uploads/BroadSupport_PressRel_EQDE_110316.pdf to http://equalitydelaware.org/uploads/BroadSupport_PressRel_EQDE_110316.pdf | |||
::::You should know by now that your idea of ''correct'' has typically met many other people's standard for vandalism, inserting worse POV, making non-factual statements, etc. If you were going to fix things in a manner that the rest of everyone agreed with, I don't see that there's a problem. But I somehow doubt that is what you are stating you intend to do. | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813135828/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/026.qmt.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/026.qmt.html | |||
::::We can't preemptively stop you, but if you start abusing the article again, the prior conditions for which you were blocked apply again, and almost certainly an admin will reblock you. ] 04:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201073523/http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11067/LEGAL/freedom/index.htm to http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11067/LEGAL/freedom/index.htm | |||
::::Further which; rewording "same-sex 'marriage'" and removing unnecessary obscenities are not seen by consensus as necessary improvements, and would be vandalism, as has been repeatedly made clear to you. It's not broken, we aren't going to fix it. You don't have to like it. But if you can't live with it, and try and make those edits against consensus, your time as editor here no doubt grows short. | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201073523/http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11067/LEGAL/freedom/index.htm to http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11067/LEGAL/freedom/index.htm | |||
:::::Why do you suppose that "removing unnecessary obscenities are not seen by consensus as necessary"? Who does this consensus consist of, and why would they object to removal of unnecessary obscenities? ] 04:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061101033400/http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_609.shtml to http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_609.shtml | |||
::::I'm sure you've heard the ]. ] 04:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324080417/http://www.soulforce.org/article/642 to http://www.soulforce.org/article/642 | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090103200307/http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html to http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419022239/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html to http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html | |||
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/abuse/abuse01.htm | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419022239/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html to http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419022239/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html to http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225193923/http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf to http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723135928/http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=lithuania-mps-votes-for-gay-promotion-ban-2009-07-14 to http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=lithuania-mps-votes-for-gay-promotion-ban-2009-07-14 | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060321080341/http://www.blackcommentator.com/110/110_fr_gay_civil_rights.html to http://www.blackcommentator.com/110/110_fr_gay_civil_rights.html | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919155330/http://sexualities.sagepub.com/content/14/6/632.abstract to http://sexualities.sagepub.com/content/14/6/632.abstract | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
:::::What possible objection could you have to balancing the introduction? ] 04:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::Insertion of more POV. ] 04:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::If that is truly your concern and you are working in good faith, let's not '''insert''' anything. Let's balance the introduction by removing POV. Of all of the societies in the history of the world, the "Sambia boys in New Guinea" are cited because they "ingest the semen of older males". That is clearly an outlier and does not belong in the introduction. Can we agree to balance the introduction by moving that out of the intro, lower in the article? ] 04:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Ok, I change that to: "Making it more POV by selective insertion, deletion or alteration" ] 08:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
::::::::Lou, we've been over this before: That example is there, not to gross you out or to make homosexuality seem more okay (really, do you think feeding semen to young boys makes homosexuality look okay to most people?), but as an example of a society which views what ''we'' would see as same-sex sex as not a sex act at all. The examples are there in order to verify claims that would otherwise look, to someone from our society, as completely absurd. Here, however, is one possibility: | |||
:::::::::1. Remove the example from the introduction, but retain the sentence (or something like it), "Whether or not an act counts as sex or as sexual varies from culture to culture." (with an appropriate citation). | |||
:::::::::2. Keep all other examples in the intro. | |||
:::::::::3. Create a new section to discuss variances between what does and does not count as sexual between cultures. | |||
::::::::That's the treaty on the table, and after agreement there will be no more debate over the intro. Take it or leave it. -] 05:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 06:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Taken. ] 01:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
== please explain == | |||
::::::::::Everyone else agree? -] 03:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
"The empirical research shows that sexual orientation does not affect the likelihood that people will abuse children. Many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children." | |||
:::::::::::Yep from me. Good suggestion. :) ] 03:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Just drawing the discussion back to the paragraph above — I re-insterted it as no imporvements have been suggested in the two weeks since it was removed "for repairs". Of course further discussion on this paragraph can take place here, and agreed changes can be made to the text then (as with the rest of the article!). Cheers :) ] 04:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
despite the (overwhelming) facts that show same-sex molestation is disproportionate to the percentage of homosexuals in the population (see "The Gay Report" among others), this is rejected by Herek et al on the basis that same-sex molestation says nothing about "adult sexual orientation" -- in other words, a man who molests little boys is not, technically, a homosexual? | |||
:''All of the world's major cultures have considered procreative sex within a recognised relationship to be a sexual norm — one which often existed in parallel with customs that facilitated same-sex relations. However, starting with the Hebrew scriptures, and philosophical texts in Classical Greece, carnal relations between males were condemned as corrupt or ungodly, and various punishments were prescribed. While in Asia, America, the Pacific basin and Africa same sex relations continued to be integrated into the cultures, in the Christian-dominated West, a range of practices were employed to prevent same-sex sexuality, ranging to execution for offenders.'' -- | |||
am I the only one who thinks this is logically a very, very weak argument? and it seems to only come from Herek and other academics with an obvious pro-gay bias... | |||
I appreciate where you are going with this Haiduc, it is good to recognise the global historical diversity. I do feel, though, that a certain view is implied here that is not held by all the relevant scholars. Namely, that the whole world throughout history has embraced homosexuality until the Hebrew scriptures and Greek philosophy came along and wrecked everything. One problem with this view is that at the time of those writings, most of the world had no written culture. Do you have evidence that no other cultures condemned homosexuality as corrupt or ungodly, or prescribed punishments? These writings were expressing ideas that already existed; they didn't invent them. Can you provide citations that homosexual relations were never censured in pre-colonial Asia, America, the Pacific basin and Africa? Thirdly (and for the third time), you've changed a statement about homosexuality to one about male-male sexual relations. Do you really believe that the church has warmly welcomed lesbianism, or do you just keep forgetting about women? ] 04:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
first off, this interesting theory, means a teenager can't be gay because he is not an adult -- if a 16 year old adolescent male in high school | |||
is in a relationship with another 16 year old adolescent male, neither of them qualifies as gay because, like an adult child molester, we know nothing of his "adult sexual orientation" ... no? | |||
and so, correct me if i'm wrong. if we can say, for a second, that a man who has sex with a boy is engaged in same-sex intercourse, thus "homosexual" sex (not the position of the article or of high academia, but a view shared by *many* people if not the majority), then same-sex molestation is totally disproportionate to the population of homosexuals? | |||
Here is a suggestion for a version that make so many broad claims: ''Most of the world's cultures have considered procreative sex within a recognised relationship to be a sexual norm — sometimes exclusively so. Some ]s, especially those influenced by the ], have censured homosexual acts and relationships. Since the 1970s, much of the world has become more accepting of same-sex sexuality between partners of legal age.'' I've pasted it straight in the article as talk page suggestions don't seem to get much response. ] 06:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
am i wrong? what am i missing? | |||
:I did not forget about lesbianism, it just was not an issue around the time of discussion (3000 to 2000 years ago). If the phrasing implies a blanket certainty that there was universal approval before the Hebrewes and Lycurgus we can change that. Obviously we are limited to what we know, but just as obviously we are going from a situation of lesser restriction to greater restriction. Gilgamesh predates Rabbi Levi, the bonobo predates the human. The only thing I have read about pre-Israelite mores is that the Hebrews used proscription of male/male sex to differentiate themselves from their neighbors. And no, we can never prove a negative. | |||
:The alternative version is still way too tilted to the censurious side. And which cultures, pray tell, did ''not'' consider procreative relationships a norm? And "homosexual acts"?! Like kissing? And you are accusing me of being vague. Call a thing by its name. They did not want men fucking men because it pissed god off and he sent plagues and they did not want to die. At least that was the take in the late Middle Ages. You cannot have an intelligent discussion of "attitudes" if that is not brought out. But you are right, by posting what you did where you did you did get a response. ] 11:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
it looks like this whole business about "adult" orientation is a very intellectually dishonest way to circumvent the obvious statistics that stare us in the face. see "the Gay Report" which was actually published by gay researchers and widely accepted by the gay community. | |||
== Let's wrap this up == | |||
] (]) 10:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
This article has made good progress. Thanks for your work in compromising on the issues. Two of the four showstoppers we talked about have now been worked out. All that is left to fix is: | |||
:Yup, about 1/7 to 1/6 of all cases of child sexual abuse prosecuted in the Netherlands are homosexual in nature. So, yeah, this suggests that homosexuals/bisexuals are more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals, but since there are so few homosexuals in the population, heterosexual child abuse is much more frequent than homosexual child abuse. ] (]) 23:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
:1) Remove or reword "same-sex 'marriage'" | |||
::Both you and the IP are wrong because ] men are attracted to ''adult'' males, and ] men to ''adult'' females. Surely you don't think attraction to little girls is an aspect of heterosexuality. What motivates ] is often attraction to children as a sexual target - ]. ] (]) 23:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
:2) Remove unnecessary obscenities | |||
:I'm not going to get into all of this, because it will require me pulling out solid sources and making a long comment, but I will state that many or most men in these child sexual abuse and statutory rape cases identify as heterosexual. Yes, that includes men who have sexually abused boys. ] (]) 23:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
:Regarding what motivates child sexual abuse (a category that can cover minors who are not prepubescent and are out of the range of pedophilic interest), there are a variety of reasons. Research indicates that there are far more child sexual abusers and statutory rapists than there are pedophiles. ] (]) 00:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
"The consensus" doesn't approve of the way I tried to fix the article. So what compromise could we reach on these two items? | |||
:And there are heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles and child sexual abusers, meaning that a heterosexual pedophile's sexual attraction is directed toward prepubescent girls because he is both heterosexual and a pedophile. Often, with child sexual abuse cases, though, the male child sexual abuser's reported sexual orientation does not align with the sex of the victim he targeted; this is why I mentioned heterosexual-identified men having sexually abused boys. The typology noted has been seen a number of times in the research. ] (]) 00:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
Regarding "same-sex 'marriage'", some possible ways to work this out are: | |||
:1) Remove the term "same-sex marriage" entirely | |||
:2) Replace "same-sex marriage" with "same-sex 'marriage'" | |||
:3) Replace "same-sex marriage" with "so-called 'same-sex marriage'" | |||
== Redundancy? == | |||
Are any of those approaches acceptable to "consensus"? If not, what are some other possibilities? | |||
Isn't the lengthy section on historical cultures redundant with ]? Not to mention ], ], and the articles on homosexuality in each culture. It seems it would make more sense having this article focus on the modern world. ] (]) 19:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
:Scare quotes around 'consensus' doesn't really make your approach seem to appetizing. However, the term same-sex marriage is necessary, so 1 is out of the question. Quotes are POV, so 2 is out of the question. 'so-called' is POV, so 3 is out of the question. In light of those problems, one alternative approach would be to make it clear from context that this is a term used by a group of people (though it is also used by their opponents, so its not as if ''as a term'' it isn't generally accepted), not a state of the world as accepted by everyone. We can further that goal by devoting a section (which should be there anyway) to same-sex marriage opposition, although this article should only contain a summary of the debates - the bulk belongs in ]. -] 03:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:None of the solutions is acceptable and are POV. Making clear that some object to the word once seems ok. ] 04:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Recent child sexual abuse and pedophilia content == | |||
::I tried to add the following text to make it clear. | |||
], stop attempting to add content without discussion. At ], I stated, "Issues with this draft include the title, ], ], some poor sourcing, and a lack of ]-compliant sources. If it were created, I would take it to AfD and suggest a merge in that AfD or propose a merge on the article's talk page. But only unproblematic material would be merged to ]." I also told you, "it needs work and certainly a trim before it's added . I suggest that at , you propose adding some material from your draft . I also suggest that you move your drat to your own sandbox (meaning copying and pasting what's in it to your sandbox). And then editors can work on tweaking the material, either by advising you or directly editing your sandbox. We can come to a consensus that way. You can then discard this article draft." | |||
:::''Billions of people worldwide oppose same-sex "marriage". Using the term "marriage" to describe a union of homosexuals undermines the institution of marriage. Billions of people feel that marriage is a sacred relationship between a man and woman sanctioned by God as the best way to organize families and rear children.'' | |||
Your draft was delclined, and I don't see that you fixed any issues with the draft. You should not keep adding this contested content without consensus. See ]. And also see ]. ] (]) 02:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::''For hundreds of years the term "marriage" has meant the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. As such, the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, a logical impossibility. This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church, of which there are one billion members , as well as the position of several other religious groups and countless people across the globe.'' | |||
== Ancient Israel == | |||
:::''The term "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms that is the source of considerable confusion . The point has been made that "after World War II, dictionaries were taken over by sodomy-enabling secularists who tried to make America accept homosexuality by hijacking some of our most cherished words" '' | |||
This section references a website that discusses modern views based on ancient scripture, not ancient Israeli views. The website cited also uses translated bibles as a resource, many of which are known to have intentional changes made during translation (for example, the King James bible). This section should be removed or rewritten with a source that actually discusses ancient Israeli views toward homosexuality. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::My text was reverted. How could this text be reworded to make it acceptable to "consensus"? ] 12:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::See discussion at the archive. ] 14:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::Please work in good faith. What specifically from "discussion at the archive" do you wish to point out? How could this text be reworded to make it acceptable to "consensus"? ] 00:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::I work always in good faith. But I do not see the need to go through the same discussion over and over again, and I therefore point back to the same discussion of less than two weeks ago. ] 03:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::What specifically from "discussion at the archive" do you wish to point out? How could this text be reworded to make it acceptable to "consensus"? ] 03:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Indonesia == | |||
Regarding obscenities, the article uses the term "cocksucker" and features an illustration that includes nudity. Some possibilities for removing the term "cocksucker": | |||
Delete the fact Indonesia " as the largest Muslim nation by population " as Indonesia won't become the largest Muslim country anymore soon ( Estimated in 2030) https://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/the-future-of-the-global-muslim-population/ , Will be replaced by Pakistan >>>>> <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:1) Remove the sentence from the article | |||
:2) Remove the section from the article | |||
:3) Reference the statement like this: "McCarthy used vulgarities when describing homosexuals" | |||
Are any of those approaches acceptable to "consensus"? If not, what are some other possibilities? | |||
:No. ]. ] 04:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::"If not, what are some other possibilities?" ] 04:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::None. If you want to dispute that he used that word, bring the sourcesthat proof that. Read ] to see that WP is not censored. ] 04:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::Ah, there are ''no'' other possibilities. I see. | |||
::::If you would read this page you would discover that I have not disputed "that he used that word". That is not the issue. The issue is that http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Profanity says | |||
:::::''Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Misplaced Pages readers should be used '''if and only if''' their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including '''information''' about offensive material is part of Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.'' | |||
::::The sentence "Senator Joseph McCarthy used accusations of homosexuality as a smear tactic in his anti-Communist crusade" is a more than suitable alternative to "Cocksucker"? | |||
::::Do you believe that this article should have a section about the USA in the 1950's? ] 05:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::No and Yes to your questions. ] 14:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::Please work in good faith. "No and Yes" doesn't help. I have asked one question here, not "questions". ''Why'' do you believe that this article should have a section about the USA in the 1950's? ] 00:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I assume always good faith. You asked a question, you got an answer to it. Ok, you do not like the answer, can happen. Furthermore, if the first one was not a question, the answer to the second is, yes, I think this article should have a section about the USA in the 1950's because it is relevant to illustrate how rotten politics has been towards homosexual people. ] 03:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Would it be possible to compromise? Are there other examples in world history of "how rotten politics has been towards homosexual people", or is this the only one? ] 03:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:That you don't like that the term 'cocksucker' appears in the article is certainly no reason for removing a section that is of immediate relevance to the topic. Nor is it reason for removing the sentence or replacing it with something banal. I don't really see a compromise happening here, but if anyone has any other suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them. I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, I just don't see any alternative to a vivid, historically relevant quote. -] 03:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::This issue is not that I "don't like the term". The issue is that obscenities "should be used '''if and only if''' their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate". That is not the case here. Joe McCarthy, a US politician from 50 years ago, is not central to the topic. That quote is one of thousands that could have been selected. I'm sure that we can come to some reasonable compromise here if we try. ] 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::And, as argued in many other places, this obscenity meets those criteria. -] 03:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::How so? ] 03:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::Please see ]. There is no need to rehash this argument yet again. ] 03:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::I was actually asking Seth to clarify his statement. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Many things were discussed at the link you provided. I am trying to understand what makes this one statement made 50 years ago by one US politician so central to this topic that it could not be replaced by one of thousands of other quotes. ] 04:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Regarding the illustration, is there an alternate illustration that could be used? ] 02:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Maybe, but only and only if they are of equal or better illustrative quality. See also ]. ] 04:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Great! There are many available right on Misplaced Pages. ] 04:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, if you bring them here to the TALK page first, they can be inserted as soon as there is consensus that they are of this equal illustrative quality. ] 04:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::Terrific! Let's go with this one: ] ] 05:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::No, this image is not a good alternative! It is to ambigious and can hint at mant different things. ] 14:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::Ambigious in what way? The piece is entitled "Jonathan Lovingly Taketh His Leave of David". ] 00:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::It could point at two friends without anything sexual. ] 02:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Let's be reasonable. It is a picture of two men holding hands. One has his arm around the other. The title includes the word "lovingly". That is not acceptable to this consensus because "it could point at two friends without anything sexual"? Is it your position that this "consensus" is working in good faith here? | |||
::::::::There are ''many'' images that could be compromised on by a group of editors acting in good faith. There was nothing wrong with that image. But I am assuming good faith, so let's select one of these instead: | |||
] | |||
]. Which would you like? ] 03:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::You point exactly out why the image is not acceptable and ambigious. In many (contemporal) cultures, holding hands between men does indicate friendships, NOT homosexuality! The new images are equally unclear. The first is just two men, nothing else. The second is ambigious as it can also refer to "the people of Lut (Lot)." ] 03:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::The second piece has the word "sodomites" right in the title. Please operate in good faith. ] 03:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Its unlikely. Only an explicit image would have the obvious homosexual associations that would necessarily tie it to the topic of the article. Likely most, if not any, other images that don't contain nudity could be read in an entirely different way, resulting in a different interpretation and therefore would only be arguably appropriate. The fact is, though, that its not like the image is gay porn (though there are gay porn images on wikipedia!) - its a historical artifact, so I think you're going too far in asking for its removal. -] 03:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::The illustration was added very recently. If it were central to the topic, why wasn't it added long ago? Is it really necessary to display a penis on an article about "social attitudes"? ] 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::To your first question -- because articles are always being improved. Maybe this picture was newly uploaded. Maybe people who knew about the picture didn't know about the article and/or people who knew about the article didn't know about the picture until recently. ] 03:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::Is that correct, or are you speculating? There seems to be a large number of alternative images available. For example Isn't it possible to pick a more appropriate one? ] 03:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::It is roughly correct. I added the image, while I was going to the process of adding images to several articles, because I came across it and it was directly relevant to the section it was added to. There may well be more images, some of which may depict penises, breasts, or vaginas, which are also important, notable, and pertinent, but which noone has uploaded or come across yet. That's the way wikipedia works. | |||
:::::It is likely that a penis-free image could be found, but it is unlikely that a more appropriate image could be found. As for your image suggestion, it suffers from exactly the problem I describe above. Are they good friends, or lovers? Are they involved in a homosexual relationship, or is one comforting the other? What are the social norms in the society depicted regarding same-sex touching - that is, would they allow for this behavior as normal heterosexual behavior, or would it be indicative of homosexuality? None of this is clear from the picture. (Note, for example, the intro to ].) -] 03:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::The name of the piece is "Jonathan Lovingly Taketh His Leave of David". That leaves very little doubt. The illustration that is currently being used does not prove they are lovers either. I don't think this would be a very difficult item to compromise on. There are many alternatives available here. ] 04:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::It is not Joe McCarthy's foul mouth that is the point here, it is his demonization of men in erotic relationships with each other. As such the language is of the essence of the argument. As for the ancient pottery, the picture is valuable and the date of its posting is not germane. ] 03:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::But haven't ''many'' people demonized gays over the course of history? What makes Joe McCarthy essential while others are not? ] 03:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Of course many people have demonized gays over the years, but none in as prominant a position as McCarthy, speaking publicly, during the time being discussed. -] 03:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Here are some quotes from people who are as prominent as McCarthy. | |||
::::::::'''Pat Buchanan''': | |||
::::::::"AIDS is nature's revenge on gay men." | |||
::::::::'''Rev. Jimmy Swaggart''': | |||
::::::::"I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain: if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died." | |||
::::::::'''Dr. Laura''': | |||
::::::::"The error is in your inability to relate sexually intimately, in a loving way to a member of the opposite sex it is a biological error." | |||
:::::::: "It goes on and says 'Pedophilia and child molestation have zero to do with being gay, homosexual orientation' and that’s not true. That is not true. How many letters have I read on the air from gay men who acknowledge that a huge portion of the male homosexual populace is predatory on young boys." | |||
::::::::'''Michael Savage''': | |||
::::::::"Get AIDS and die." | |||
::::::::'''Lou Sheldon''': | |||
::::::::"They want our preschool children. ... They want our kindergarten children. ... They want our middle school and high school children." | |||
::::::::"Homosexuals are dangerous. They proselytize. They come to the door, and if your son answers and there is nobody there to stop it, they grab the son and run off with him. They steal him. They take him away and turn him into a homosexual." | |||
::::::::Any of those quotes could replace McCarthy's. ] 04:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::You're right that most of those quotes should appear in the article, but they're from the wrong time period, and they don't even fit into the section, which describes the ways in which discourses on nationalism and discourses in sexualities tend to intersect. You have to keep in mind that what you will need to find is an ''appropriate'' quote, not just any old anti-gay quote. -] 04:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::The people I mentioned are as prominent as McCarthy. Why must the United States in the 1950's be included in this article at all? Should we do a section on every decade in every country? Why ''couldn't'' we compromise and replace the McCarthy quote with the quotes I provided? ] 04:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::The 1950s US is a time in which a particularly important phenomenon which has occurred cross-culturally happened with particular intensity (and it is the phenomenon which I mentioned two paragraphs above). No. Because they aren't relevant to the section. -] 04:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Lou, if you want this debate to continue, you're going to have to try a better tactic than "I don't understand. Please provide an argument."; someone provides an argument; "I don't understand. Please provide an argument." -] 04:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not sure what you mean by that. But I disagree that the USA in the 1950's is central to this topic. If "consensus" feels strongly that it is, I would say that ''this'' sentence must be kept: "Senator Joseph McCarthy used accusations of homosexuality as a smear tactic in his anti-Communist crusade". That is the key point as it relates to nationalism vis-a-vis sexuality. "Cocksucker" is not the key point. It could be removed without any loss of precision whatsoever. ] 04:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::In reply (and entrance to the conversation,) I believe that the word "Cocksucker" in this case is the key point. There are few derrogatory words as insulting as "cocksucker," and when the reader is left with the forementioned sentence, they don't have as clear an idea of how bad the insultation (hehe... not sure if that's even a word) was. There's my 2cp.] <sub>|</sub><sup>|</sup><sub>|</sub> ] 00:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::There are ''many'' derrogatory words for gay people more insulting than "cocksucker". We could add "faggot", "carpet-muncher", "fudge-packer", "gerbil stuffer", etc. We could easily Google many quotations containing those terms. But why would we do that? Do we have no dignity at all? The reader understands what McCarthy was up to without subjecting children to the word "cocksucker". It is clearly not necessary and is contrary to Misplaced Pages's policy. ] 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Update: | |||
::#"Lou, if you want this debate to continue, you're going to have to try a better tactic than 'I don't understand. Please provide an argument.'; someone provides an argument; 'I don't understand. Please provide an argument.'" (as quoted, by ]) | |||
::#"I'm not sure what you mean by that." (as quoted, by ]) | |||
::Sorry, just a bit funny in my mind.] <sub>|</sub><sup>|</sup><sub>|</sub> ] 00:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::When did I ever say "I don't understand. Please provide an argument"? ] 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::By insisting that a rough paraphrase be taken as a direct quotation, you're practically doing it right there. -] 05:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::Oh, please. You said "you're going to have to try a better tactic than 'I don't understand...". Would you mind explaining what you meant by that? ] 12:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::He means that the vast majority of your responses to other people's arguments don't engage with the actual argument at all but are rather just assertions that whatever the other person said didn't make sense. (The comment to which I'm responding is a pretty good example.) ] 00:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Why was the illustration change reverted? == | |||
We had discussed this on the talk page. I waited many hours and heard no objections. The change was reverted blindly without any comment here whatsoever. Please reinstate the change. ] 13:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:People sleep. The image is not a good replacement. I suggest you wait the next time a littlebit longer till you have possitive feedback and that people have actively responded and approved. Hearing nothing is insufficient to assume everybody is ok with it. ] 14:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
: It was not reverted blindly, I checked the change carefully and did not revert it until I had seen what the changes were. No other editors agreed with your proposed change. And I specifically disagree with it, for all of the reasons already stated above by other editors. That's how consensus works. ] 13:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: Note: ] is not ] -- so although you may disagree with the consensus, that's what it is, and how decision-making works on this encyclopedia. ] 01:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Let's not be coy. Everybody here understands what "consensus" means for ''this'' article. ] 02:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::No, enlighten us Lou. What ''does'' "consensus" mean for this article? And does it mean the same without the quotes? By the way, I believe you might have been using the quotes to show disbelief in the validity of the word in that context. Something that you previously denied up and down was the meaning of putting a word in quotes. Or did you just believe that we wouldn't understand the word "consensus" without the quotes? --] 02:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::There is no different type of consensus for this article, and I am pretty sure that I know that everybody but one knows exactly what ] means. ] 02:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::The consensus seems to be to keep the Patroclus and Achilles image. My own feeling is that between two images of equal value, one showing nudity and the other not, the picture showing nudity should be favored so as not to be swayed by puritan concerns, which I will qualify here as inappropriate. ] 03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::Why is nudity necessary in an article about "societal attitudes"? Misplaced Pages says that "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Misplaced Pages readers should be used '''if and only if''' their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available". That is not the case here. There are ''many'' "suitable alternatives available". Please operate in good faith. | |||
::::::This is a "consensus" where the answer to "what are some other possibilities?" is "no". This is a consensus where the answer to "How could this text be reworded?" is "See discussion at the archive". This is a "consensus" where the answer to one question is "No and Yes to your questions". This is a "consensus" that objects to "images that don't contain nudity". ] 03:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::We have responded to that argument. Provide a new one or drop it. -] 05:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::The topic here is not homosexuality, but "'''societal attitudes''' toward homosexuality". What '''societal attitude''' is depicted by the Patroclus illustration? It seems to me that images that would be included in an article about ''societal attitudes'' would include things like: | |||
:::1) A picture of people protesting in support of homosexuals | |||
:::2) A picture of people protesting in opposition of homosexuals | |||
:::3) A pie chart depicting the results of a poll about societal attitides. | |||
:::4) A world map with counties colored by their approval of homosexuality | |||
:::5) An illustration depicting homosexuals being burned at the stake | |||
::All of those images relate to ''societal attitudes''. What '''societal attitude''' is depicted by the Patroclus illustration? ] 12:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::<nowiki>*sigh*</nowiki> Lou, it illustrates a culture where homosexuality was accepted, so you didn't ''need'' to protest in support of homosexuals. Why would you protest in support of something that wasn't threatened? --]<sup>]</sup> 13:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::''How'' does it "illustrate a culture where homosexuality was accepted"? It has nothing to do with "societal attitudes" whatsoever. It is not germane to the topic and should be removed. ] 01:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::Why was the image reinserted? Can somebody here explain what the image has to do with the topic of "societal attitudes"? Please refrain from vandalizing the article. ] 01:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::Kim VD, Please work in good faith. You reinserted an image that did not relate to the topic of the article. I took the time to discuss the reasons for the deletion of the image on the talk page. You offered no such courtesy. Adding a "troll warning" does not relieve you from your responsibility to work in good faith. If you think that the image depicts a "societal attitude" please explain how, and we may be able to reach a compromise. If you are not willing to work within the framework established by Misplaced Pages, please refrain from editing the article. ] 02:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::'''''Closing arguments''''' As noted above, ] demonstrates that the culture that produced it did not have taboos surrounding male-to-male sexual relations. By picturing nudity it shows more explicitly that the relationship pictured is sexual in nature, as opposed to other works which are more ]. As an example of its genre it is ]. Evidence that Greek culture was accepting of homosexual relationships is overwhelming, ] ]. | |||
:::::And as noted above, Lou franklin is not providing arguments: he is restating positions. | |||
:::::Constant accusations that others are not working in good faith are not valid arguments. I would note that evidence presented during arbitration shows misbehaviour and violation of policy on the part of only one editor: Lou franklin. ] 02:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::Lou, your edit summar was "Do not vandalize the article. Please discuss changes on the talk page. The image does not relate to the article's topic." I am beginning to see why you are getting on other's nerves. You literally '''just explained to Kim VD like 50 seconds ago that working in good faith is better than working in bad faith''', and then you tag his edit as '''vandalism'''.] <sub>|</sub><sup>|</sup><sub>|</sub> ] 02:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Convert vs. Recruit == | |||
Since ] has asked we discuss this change, I'll add in my two cp as well. I think "recruit" is the way to go. While "convert" is also stong, I believe that "recruit" has a longer history with regards to this phenomenon. See ] and more importantly ], ''“As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children”''. There's nothing wrong with "convert", per se, but "recruit" seems to have historically been the term used. --] 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
"Recruited" is the word to use in that context. Fundies claim "] children" and this is a direct reference to that claim. Perhaps this should be made more clear, as this is a clear-cut case of a "societal attitude towards homosexuality" that needs inclusion -- in the form of a link to the ] article. The word "conversion" is more customarily used ] (which already has an appropriate mention in this article). ] 01:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:When I hear the word "recruit," I think of setting up advertisements and possibly using propoganda to sway one's opinion to join a group. When I hear the word "covert," I think of using unfair methods or actions to force one's opinion to join a group. That's my reasoning, and I think that's what the Anita Bryant might of meant. Of course, I had not seen all that about Anita Bryant, so "recruit" would be better, as it is what they actually said, even if it's not as strong as it should be concerning biased mothers, such as Bryant seems to be. I'll make the reverts, but right now I'm already late for school.] <sub>|</sub><sup>|</sup><sub>|</sub> ] 11:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Inclusion of Bisexuality and other orientations? - Does article name need amending? == | |||
Having looked over the article it clearly addresses societal attitude towards ] along with those to homosexuality, while the title only refers to homosexuality. | |||
Therefore I suggest we redesignate this article to cover all non-hetero sexual orientation by renaming it to reflect this. Some key reasons are- | |||
*'''1.''' Given the common trait of heterocentric societies (which are the, unfortunate, majority) to divide sexual orientations into the 2 boxes of 'heterosexual' and 'everything else' (a.k.a "gay"), so lumping ], ], and ] in with homosexuality, the societies as a result tend to treat and regard the 4 'other' sexualities in similar if not identical ways. As the article currently says itself - | |||
::''Much less research has been conducted into societal attitudes toward bisexuality. What studies do exist suggest that the attitude of heterosexuals toward bisexuals mirrors their attitidue toward homosexuals, and that bisexuals experience a similar degree of hostility, discrimination, and violence relating to their sexual orientation as do homosexuals.'' | |||
*'''2.''' The article already significantly (although nowhere near comprehensively) covers attitudes towards bisexuality. | |||
*'''3.''' Due to both the aforementioned similar attitudes and the overlap and 'confusion' in general societal perceptions of homosexuality and bi / pan / asexuality, it is almost certain a bi-pan-asex sister article would be in the main a pure duplication of this one. | |||
*'''4.''' Leaving the situation as it stands, the article will perpetuate the damaging misconceptions that bisexuality is a sub-type of, or another name for, homosexuality. | |||
I would propose either '''Societal attitudes towards non-heterosexual sexual orientations''' or '''Societal attitudes towards non-heterosexuality''' as starting points for a new title. | |||
Does this sound a good plan of action? --] 01:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I have some reservations about the proposed naming scheme: | |||
:1. The article covers a large historical period, over which, for many people, homosexuality describes not an identity, but an activity (really, same-sex sex or desire would be more accurate and less confusing). Thus, in this context, there is no bisexuality. | |||
:2. The bisexual is a very thoroughly contemporary identity possibility - if we were just covering contemporary attitudes, that would be fine, but we're not. | |||
That said, I'm not sure 'homosexuality' is the correct word to use in the title anyway. Maybe we should change the name to "Societal attitudes toward same-sex desire" or something ("Societal attitudes toward non-heterosexual etc." is a bit large)? |
Latest revision as of 14:03, 21 November 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Societal attitudes toward homosexuality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Societal attitudes toward homosexuality at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Colon v1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JTorre23.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
POV blanking of references
Scientiom is repeatedly blanking material that is referenced, because apparently it does not sit well with his point of view. Please note again that the scope of this article is "Societal attitudes TOWARD homosexuality" but his version of the article is skewing the information and is not giving an honest depiction of the full range of "Societal attitudes TOWARD homosexuality" to be found on planet Earth. "IDON'TLIKEIT" is NOT a valid reason for blanking what the references say. The following information needs to be restored for balance and more points of view:
Some opponents of the movement, such as Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition, say that gay people are seeking special rights, not equal rights, and that the movement should not be referred to as a civil rights movement. They argue, for example, that in seeking the right to marry members of the same sex, gay people are seeking a special right for themselves and disregarding the fact that polygamists and other groups defined by sexual behavior do not have this right either. Netzhammer, Mel, "'The Gay Agenda' and 'Gay Rights, Special Rights' and the Construction of a Homosexual Role" at Buffalo State Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- If the view of one person is of sufficient weight to be "societal", this is going to be a very long article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- If only one side of the story is allowed to be told and only one point of view is given about a controversial topic, it's going to be a very short article. Long articles are better, and if you cannot recognize this view as "societal" then you do not have an honest definition of "society". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see the sourcing indicating that it is "societal". Billions of people out there, and we're saying this is Ralph Reed's belief? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, we didn't say that. Read it again, it says "Some opponents of the movement, such as Ralph Reed". The reference being cited mentions many other similarly worded criticisms from others as well. A wikipedia article on the same subject isn't neutral when one summarily removes all the viewpoints critical of one's own. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- The reference being cited notes about three folks making similar statements - Trent Lott, Ralph Reed, and the unnamed narrator. And the reference being cited doesn't appear to be a WP:RS, it looks to be some WP:SPS. And it doesn't appear to be a comment on societal attitudes toward homosexuality, but on gay rights. So if your argument is that we should have poorly-sourced off-topic commentary because it's against homosexuality, that wouldn't seem to be a winning argument. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- The reference is to an academic paper on the same subject of this article, "Societal attitudes toward homosexuality". The paper, while it is expressing a pro-gay rights viewpoint, follows the scholarly requirement of acknowledging the existence of opposing viewpoints and critiquing those viewpoints head-on in their own words, rather than misrepresenting them, or running and hiding and pretending there are no opposing viewpoints. If it had been a paper on the topic of Societal attitudes, but yet it ran and hid from the opposing viewpoints, pretending they didn't exist in society and painted a deceptively favorable, one-sided picture, it would have deserved an F and been useless for scholarly purposes. A wikipedia article on the controversial subject of Societal attitudes should be at least as scholarly and twice as neutral. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- The reference being cited notes about three folks making similar statements - Trent Lott, Ralph Reed, and the unnamed narrator. And the reference being cited doesn't appear to be a WP:RS, it looks to be some WP:SPS. And it doesn't appear to be a comment on societal attitudes toward homosexuality, but on gay rights. So if your argument is that we should have poorly-sourced off-topic commentary because it's against homosexuality, that wouldn't seem to be a winning argument. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, we didn't say that. Read it again, it says "Some opponents of the movement, such as Ralph Reed". The reference being cited mentions many other similarly worded criticisms from others as well. A wikipedia article on the same subject isn't neutral when one summarily removes all the viewpoints critical of one's own. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see the sourcing indicating that it is "societal". Billions of people out there, and we're saying this is Ralph Reed's belief? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- One of the problems is that homosexuality, as its contemporary name makes it clear, is a kind of sexuality, rather than an ideological viewpoint. People who advocate tolerant/liberal/libertarian views toward human sexuality consistently tend to be more accepting of people in sexual minorities, and their causes (that are generally held when people in those sexual minorities are open about their status, and proud of that). Most causes advocated by sexual minorities makes the perfect sense for almost everybody in sexual minorities, but the fact that one is part of a sexual minority won't mean this person will have libertarian, liberal, tolerant or even non-biased/accurate views of people of its own sexual minority, let alone all others. We have a ton of different political and ideological objectives related to our own particular and diverse views, experiences and issues, of which same-sex marriage legalization is just one of them (because it is becoming each day of a stronger common sense that straight love isn't superior to other kinds of love, and because we don't say in our Constitutions that people get married to have biological children). The fact that a person criticizes same-sex marriage or other causes by a mainstream American conservative movement doesn't, at least in theory, mean that this person generalizes it to all points-of-view and causes of, say, liberal Western gay people. It is conservatives themselves that try all the time to make the construct that their opposition to same-sex marriage isn't an opposition to legal same-sex love (if it is true or not, not the business of Wikipedians as far as this article goes). (Here in Brazil, going as far as to say that homophobia does not exist in the way "we paint it" in Brazil or other contemporary Western societies and we are just sick Marxist militants pushing our own Gramscist agenda to make Christians look bad and end freedom of speech painting ourselves as oppressed victims... talk about drama .) Lguipontes (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Article being rewritten from a discernible Point-of-View
The entire language of this article is being rewritten from a discernible Point of View that will be difficult for probably at least 95% of people to identify with. Language written from a particular point-of-view is forbidden by the NPOV policy. Articles about controversial subjects are required to be neutral since many people feel strongly on both sides of the controversy. For these reasons, I will be adding a POV check to the article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- It seems generally neutral to me. I'm removing the template. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Uhh NO RObotNinjaParrot, it is so definitively over the edge for the pro homosexuality that this article should be labeled how we make any who differs our opinion on Gays into pariahs, haters or fools, even a note to how psychology changed its definition from Mental Disorder to acceptable behavior in modern society
This is totally a POV article and as such is endemic in the Misplaced Pages compendiu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.226.162 (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Use of File:Status of gay persons.jpg
This file shows a map with color encodings of the result of a formula. The formula is uncited, and appears to the the WP:OR of a Misplaced Pages contributor. What source says that this particular set of indices is a good measure of the "Status of gay persons" Who says that some indices are to be rated only one-third as much as others? Also, who chose the particular moment in time to rate these issues along these various scales? And who says what level of the sum of these indices represents "not accepted" vs "evolving" vs "integrated"? For the matter of that, where are the sources that even give the values of the indices. I prefer to assume that these have been quoted accurately, but giving the actual sources might show up reliability issues. Even assuming that the values of the indices have been accurately used in creating this graphic, choosing this particular combination is a violation of WP:SYNTH unless there is a cited source for the formula, and if there is that source should be properly named. I have therefore removed the image and its caption from the article. DES 23:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Here is the map in question.
- In my view, it can't be used. It's original research and violates WP:POV. If there is an authoritative source that has already produced such a map, then I think that would be worth considering.- MrX 23:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like a clear case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to me. It appears to depend on an index calculation that was invented by the map author and isn't well-defined anyway. And don't say WP:OI - this is a case where the image does "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". It should be removed. - htonl (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I removed it, I has since been restored by User:Aless2899, who seems to be a relatively new editor. DES 23:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Relatively new is putting it mildly. All of his edits are related to adding this map to articles. - htonl (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've requested page protection so that this can be sorted out. - MrX 23:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Relatively new is putting it mildly. All of his edits are related to adding this map to articles. - htonl (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I removed it, I has since been restored by User:Aless2899, who seems to be a relatively new editor. DES 23:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like a clear case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to me. It appears to depend on an index calculation that was invented by the map author and isn't well-defined anyway. And don't say WP:OI - this is a case where the image does "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". It should be removed. - htonl (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I just added all the sources regarding the map. It has actually already been published by a European newspaper, OneEurope. It is a well-known journal that could be considered authoritative source. http://one-europe.info/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aless2899 (talk • contribs)
- The sources you cite on the image description page seem to be sources for the individual indices. Can you provide a precise source for the formula, and for the scale used to rate countries under it? A specific page on one-europe.info or wherever the source of the formula can be found, please? The image does not seem to appear on the main page of that site at this moment. DES 00:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Actually it does, on the main page there is a section there that auto-rotates 4 images, of which if this is one. From there, te specific article is at http://one-europe.info/gay-rights-a-long-story-of-struggles Tarc (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I have now found this article. It seems that
you areUser:Aless2899 is the author of the article, and that although the map is used, no discussion of the formula behind it is included. Have I missed anything? DES 00:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)- Well...it was a blog dated today for one. I have removed it. Now, there are still many other sources used on the image.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- So far as i can see, each of those sources supports ONE of the indices that the map is reporting a sum of. None of them supports combining that particular set of data according to that particular formula. DES 02:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. Not sure if that is against policy or guidelines exactly. I seem to remember my bringing up a similar question on an OWS graphic that I believed to be OR and synth at one time and the prevailing consensus was that it was not inappropriate. I would have to re-check that graphic and discussion to be sure, but from what you said here it is that an index used to state one fact was combined with another index (and more) to create the colored graphic image. But you also have other concerns. On the face of it, it does sound like synthesis, but we are discussing an image and not a claim in prose that combines facts to create a new fact.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- So far as i can see, each of those sources supports ONE of the indices that the map is reporting a sum of. None of them supports combining that particular set of data according to that particular formula. DES 02:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well...it was a blog dated today for one. I have removed it. Now, there are still many other sources used on the image.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- OneEurope is a student magazine and Alessandro, who I presume is the user who uploaded the map here, is a university student. This is just a blog post by a college kid. We should not be using his novel ranking system whether he gives out his formula or not.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree. Mr. Siegel seems to have this right on the nose from everything I can see and the only index supported seems to be the HDI. I have no clue what the editor was attempting other than to somehow add the sums together in a less than academic manner....well OK...in no apparent manner at all. I have no clue what is being attempted here and it does look very much like original research.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- One of the sources used was a Misplaced Pages article, List of the first LGBT holders of political offices in the United Kingdom.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree. Mr. Siegel seems to have this right on the nose from everything I can see and the only index supported seems to be the HDI. I have no clue what the editor was attempting other than to somehow add the sums together in a less than academic manner....well OK...in no apparent manner at all. I have no clue what is being attempted here and it does look very much like original research.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I have now found this article. It seems that
- Actually it does, on the main page there is a section there that auto-rotates 4 images, of which if this is one. From there, te specific article is at http://one-europe.info/gay-rights-a-long-story-of-struggles Tarc (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've just full protected for three days per this request. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly i don't think that was needed, Mark Arsten. The reverts have stopped, and the users favoring use of the map seem to be engaging with those opposing it. Please reverse protection. DES 02:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I think protection has served its purpose by now, so I'll unprotect early. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Whether or not this map violates any policy, it tells a fuzzy story based on an equation that gives mathematical precision but that doesn't make it accurate. It shouldn't be in here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Philippines
An editor has repeatedly tried to delete a reference to relative social acceptance of homosexuality in the Philippines, citing this image as a reference showing that it's not. However, our information as presented is sourced, and how the country votes at the UN would be a reflection of governmental, not societal, views. I invite the editor to try to make the case here and gain consensus before attempting to repeat the edit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
No mention of ILGA?
I don't want to get into any extended debate, but it seems surprising that the "Association with child abuse and pedophilia" makes no mention of the significant ILGA controversies. Many anti-gay activists certainly mention them frequently... AnonMoos (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. I added hatnotes under a subsection to the main article, which I believe are the subsection on NAMBLA's Misplaced Pages article and on ILGA's Misplaced Pages article. – Zumoarirodoka 23:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Israel
Pew oversample Arabs in their survey of Israel. Quote from the report (page 13): "Multi-stage cluster sample stratified by Israel’s six districts, urbanity, and socioeconomic status, with an oversample of Arabs," "Sample size: 922 (504 Jews, 406 Arabs, 12 others)." Note that Israeli population is around 75% Jewish, 20% Arab and 5% other. I'm removing Pew data from article. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, it's not appropriate to use the percentages in the main text. The survey states "In Israel, where views of homosexuality are mixed, secular Jews are more than twice as likely as those who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox to say homosexuality should be accepted (61% vs. 26%); just 2% of Israeli Muslims share this view." I'd sum that up as "a survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Survey found that acceptance of homosexuality is higher among secular Jews than people who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox" -- Aronzak (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Homosexuality
When considering this issue of homosexuality, I can not seem to find an answer to one of my questions. All living things have the ability of reproduction with the exception of gay individuals, Why? For the lack of a better term... mother nature during the time of creation gave all living things the ability to reproduce to insure the continuation of all things created except gay individuals. That seems to be a contradiction of purpose, why did mother nature exclude homosexuality from all the rest of living things and why hasn't homosexuality become extinct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.225.70 (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of statistics
As seen here and here, I have twice reverted Colon v1's deletion of statistics. Colon v1, who appears to be a WP:Student editor, called the statistics outdated. I stated, "The removed material addresses different demographics, which is important. If any of this is outdated, add sources to show/replace that material."
Although Colon v1 added material in place of the removed content, Colon v1 has done nothing to replace some of the different demographics that the original content addresses. What proof is there that these statistics are outdated? Old does not always mean outdated. Sometimes, especially when it comes to research on sexual orientation and beliefs about it, the most up-to-date research is old research. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, a survey from 2011 is not that old, especially in terms of societal attitudes toward homosexuality, and Colon v1 seemed to leave some old content in while removing other old content. I don't see how the content that Colon v1 removed is any less deserving of representation or is irrelevant (another term used by Colon v1). I restored this bit that Colon v1 added; I didn't mean to remove the recent material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618180935/http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit66/bissu2.htm to http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit66/bissu2.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060411090139/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_39/ai_96621265 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_39/ai_96621265
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/28/sikhguy-050328.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929021150/http://www.faithandthecity.org/issues/social/articles/Discussions_on_Dharma%20.shtml to http://www.faithandthecity.org/issues/social/articles/Discussions_on_Dharma%20.shtml
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119045626/http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/ to http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021173315/http://equalitydelaware.org/uploads/BroadSupport_PressRel_EQDE_110316.pdf to http://equalitydelaware.org/uploads/BroadSupport_PressRel_EQDE_110316.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813135828/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/026.qmt.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/026.qmt.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201073523/http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11067/LEGAL/freedom/index.htm to http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11067/LEGAL/freedom/index.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201073523/http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11067/LEGAL/freedom/index.htm to http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11067/LEGAL/freedom/index.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061101033400/http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_609.shtml to http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_609.shtml
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324080417/http://www.soulforce.org/article/642 to http://www.soulforce.org/article/642
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090103200307/http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html to http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419022239/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html to http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html
- Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/abuse/abuse01.htm - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419022239/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html to http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419022239/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html to http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225193923/http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf to http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723135928/http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=lithuania-mps-votes-for-gay-promotion-ban-2009-07-14 to http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=lithuania-mps-votes-for-gay-promotion-ban-2009-07-14
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060321080341/http://www.blackcommentator.com/110/110_fr_gay_civil_rights.html to http://www.blackcommentator.com/110/110_fr_gay_civil_rights.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919155330/http://sexualities.sagepub.com/content/14/6/632.abstract to http://sexualities.sagepub.com/content/14/6/632.abstract
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
please explain
"The empirical research shows that sexual orientation does not affect the likelihood that people will abuse children. Many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children."
despite the (overwhelming) facts that show same-sex molestation is disproportionate to the percentage of homosexuals in the population (see "The Gay Report" among others), this is rejected by Herek et al on the basis that same-sex molestation says nothing about "adult sexual orientation" -- in other words, a man who molests little boys is not, technically, a homosexual?
am I the only one who thinks this is logically a very, very weak argument? and it seems to only come from Herek and other academics with an obvious pro-gay bias... first off, this interesting theory, means a teenager can't be gay because he is not an adult -- if a 16 year old adolescent male in high school
is in a relationship with another 16 year old adolescent male, neither of them qualifies as gay because, like an adult child molester, we know nothing of his "adult sexual orientation" ... no?
and so, correct me if i'm wrong. if we can say, for a second, that a man who has sex with a boy is engaged in same-sex intercourse, thus "homosexual" sex (not the position of the article or of high academia, but a view shared by *many* people if not the majority), then same-sex molestation is totally disproportionate to the population of homosexuals?
am i wrong? what am i missing?
it looks like this whole business about "adult" orientation is a very intellectually dishonest way to circumvent the obvious statistics that stare us in the face. see "the Gay Report" which was actually published by gay researchers and widely accepted by the gay community.
104.244.230.240 (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yup, about 1/7 to 1/6 of all cases of child sexual abuse prosecuted in the Netherlands are homosexual in nature. So, yeah, this suggests that homosexuals/bisexuals are more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals, but since there are so few homosexuals in the population, heterosexual child abuse is much more frequent than homosexual child abuse. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Both you and the IP are wrong because homosexual men are attracted to adult males, and heterosexual men to adult females. Surely you don't think attraction to little girls is an aspect of heterosexuality. What motivates child sexual abuse is often attraction to children as a sexual target - pedophilia. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to get into all of this, because it will require me pulling out solid sources and making a long comment, but I will state that many or most men in these child sexual abuse and statutory rape cases identify as heterosexual. Yes, that includes men who have sexually abused boys. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding what motivates child sexual abuse (a category that can cover minors who are not prepubescent and are out of the range of pedophilic interest), there are a variety of reasons. Research indicates that there are far more child sexual abusers and statutory rapists than there are pedophiles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- And there are heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles and child sexual abusers, meaning that a heterosexual pedophile's sexual attraction is directed toward prepubescent girls because he is both heterosexual and a pedophile. Often, with child sexual abuse cases, though, the male child sexual abuser's reported sexual orientation does not align with the sex of the victim he targeted; this is why I mentioned heterosexual-identified men having sexually abused boys. The typology noted here has been seen a number of times in the research. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Redundancy?
Isn't the lengthy section on historical cultures redundant with LGBT history? Not to mention history of homosexuality, homosexuality, and the articles on homosexuality in each culture. It seems it would make more sense having this article focus on the modern world. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Recent child sexual abuse and pedophilia content
Abhishekiucaa, stop attempting to add this content without discussion. At Draft talk:Homosexuality and likelihood of being a sexual molester, I stated, "Issues with this draft include the title, WP:Editorializing, WP:Synthesis, some poor sourcing, and a lack of WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. If it were created, I would take it to AfD and suggest a merge in that AfD or propose a merge on the article's talk page. But only unproblematic material would be merged to Societal attitudes toward homosexuality#Association with child abuse and pedophilia." I also told you, "it needs work and certainly a trim before it's added . I suggest that at , you propose adding some material from your draft . I also suggest that you move your drat to your own sandbox (meaning copying and pasting what's in it to your sandbox). And then editors can work on tweaking the material, either by advising you or directly editing your sandbox. We can come to a consensus that way. You can then discard this article draft."
Your draft was delclined, and I don't see that you fixed any issues with the draft. You should not keep adding this contested content without consensus. See WP:Consensus. And also see WP:Edit warring. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Ancient Israel
This section references a website that discusses modern views based on ancient scripture, not ancient Israeli views. The website cited also uses translated bibles as a resource, many of which are known to have intentional changes made during translation (for example, the King James bible). This section should be removed or rewritten with a source that actually discusses ancient Israeli views toward homosexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karandora (talk • contribs) 03:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Indonesia
Delete the fact Indonesia " as the largest Muslim nation by population " as Indonesia won't become the largest Muslim country anymore soon ( Estimated in 2030) https://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/the-future-of-the-global-muslim-population/ , Will be replaced by Pakistan >>>>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayu Fuller (talk • contribs) 14:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Categories:- B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Unknown-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class ethics articles
- Low-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles
- B-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles