Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:46, 28 October 2008

LGBTQ+ studies Template‑class

This template is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Template This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:Multidel

Sexology

Once the above issues have been settled I'd like to see sexology re-added, possibly under the Study/research section. Banjeboi 10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

this would also be a good addition. --Ludwigs2 00:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, sure. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Queer studies

From the Proposal #5 discussion it's suggested to add Queer studies under the "Research" section.

• Support. seems like a good match. Banjeboi 22:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support as above. Queerudite (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• support --Cooljuno411 (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Ludwigs2 08:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unsure. What would be the reason for including Queer Studies but not Conversion therapy? The case for including conversion therapy would surely be about as strong. Skoojal (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. At another time such a discussion would work but since we've gone through a lot of discussion on very similar lines, (If A and B is there then so should C), let's try just one at a time so we can keep things more productive. I think having a discussion about scope would be helpful but until that occurs maybe just start a new thread proposing conversion therapy if you wish to do so. Banjeboi 07:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you're going to take that view, then I'm shifting my position to opposed, although it's a weak opposed, not a strong opposed. I doubt that Queer Studies has much to do with research into sexual orientation per se - it's more about gay culture. I'll still support this version of the template even if Queer Studies is included, however. Skoojal (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• The view I'm taking is that we have wound up a lot of energy by bundling and contrasting article A verses article B. I think it's more constructive to include or not include something based on the article itself. Before I rewrote non-heterosexual I wouldn't have wanted it included but now it's a much better and clearer article so its inclusion works. If all the articles were in better condition, IMHO, we'd have an easier time sorting which ones should obviously be included or not. Banjeboi 08:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. look, I think we need to keep in mind that this is a template. it needs to do (at least) the following things

1. provide links to articles that discuss prominent and accepted of aspects of sexual orientation
2. provide links to articles that discuss prominent and accepted academic work on sexual orientation
3. provide links to articles that discuss prominent and accepted social and political positions on sexual orientation
4. provide links to articles that discuss issues that are normally associated with sexual orientation

'Queer Studies' probably belongs in the second point, just because a lot of the work on sexual orientation would have fallen in that category. 'Conversion Therapy' might fall under the third point, if it's significant enough, but I tend to see it as just one bit of a broader discussion about the moral nature of homosexuality (i.e., the greater argument is that homosexuality is primarily mental and morally questionable, and ConvTher is a tool that works within that paradigm). we should paint in broad strokes on templates - are there any articles about the debate over what homosexuality is that might be used instead of the specific conversion therapy reference? --Ludwigs2 01:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually conversion therapy would fall under all of those categories, except for number 1. Skoojal (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The moral nature of homosexuality is not even discussed very much on the conversion therapy page. It discusses (1) prominent and accepted aspects of whether sexual orientation can be changed. (2) Academic work on the methods used in the past and present, as well as studies on the rates of harm and successful change of sexual orientation. (3) Political debate surrounding whether to deny people the right to seek to change sexual orientation. (4) Positions of various gay activist groups and religious organizations. I think conversion therapy is at the heart of sexual orientation because it delves into what exactly sexual orientation is and what people think about it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

interesting... part of the problem here is that the conversion therapy page isn't really about 'conversion therapy'. it's a well-written but badly named article that covers a range of issues around societal responses to homosexuality. I wouldn't mind linking that article, but I'm put off by the name. could we link it to the the subsection Conversion_therapy#Malleability_of_sexual_orientation, and call it 'malleability of orientation'?. honestly, I think that 'conversion therapy' should be renamed and merged with the Heterosexual-homosexual continuum stub that CJ made (so that efforts to change orientation are put in context with the various efforts to understand orientation...). --Ludwigs2 21:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Thank you all for proving my point that it might be more constructive to simply debate one article at a time instead. This is excellent discussion and I suggest that a new thread be started for each article someone thinks should be included. Banjeboi 11:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Environment and sexual orientation

We have a link to biology. I think we should also include environment. From what I have read, most medical associations believe sexual orientation comes from a combination of biology and environment. It would be POV to prefer one over the other. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Opposed for now. You re-created that article a day ago, let's give it a little time to see how it develops with other editors' input. Banjeboi 00:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Joshua's reasons for wanting to include it seem good enough to me. It could be a better article (left some comments about that on the talk page), but I don't see any reason for not including it. Skoojal (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Queerudite (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Innate bisexuality

I think innate bisexuality might be a good addition to the "Research" section. Banjeboi 02:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Withdraw this one. On second thought it needs a lot of work but may be a good candidate after a bit of sourcing and clean-up takes place. -- Banjeboi 11:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

heterosexual-homosexual continuum

I believe that under the "orientations" section of this template, the heterosexual-homosexual continuum should be clearly distinguished from the other orientations on the template. I would like to here other opinion . thanks = ¬], and the template to the right is an example of what i am talking about. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The hetero-homo article has a number of issues including a lack of citations and possibly original research. Additionally, the article appears to be simply a restatement of the definition of sexual orientation and the Kinsey scale, both of which already appear on the template and are in much better shape. Adding it to the template would be WP:UNDUE and would not add any new information that isn't contained in the articles that already appear on the template. Queerudite (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you believe it is original research, i recommend you read the references or maybe take a look on google, because it clearly isn't. And by way, the references of the actual sexual orientation article clearly states the same thing as the continuum, i recommend you read the references of the orientation article as well.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Oh wait, just took a peak at the article again, it has a reference from the American Phycological society, the same site used for the sexual orientation article, so i ask you remove your appeasement and reassess your opinion on the matter, because i have just made your statements a falsity.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Basically what Queerudite states, that article needs a lot of work. I'd feel more confident in an article about sexual orientation in general and research concerning such and we do seem to have those already. -- Banjeboi 10:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, adds no useful information that isn't in sexual orientation or Kinsey scale. --Alynna (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

current "orientations" section in violation wikipedia policy, Misplaced Pages:Lists

The current version of the "orientation" section is in clear violation with wikipedia policy involving the proper procedure and rights of assembling a list (Misplaced Pages:Lists).

Among a laundry lists of violations this template infringes by having a bialy selected list, i will state the most major and apparent violations bellow.

"Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list."

This biasly selected list by a group of users dominated with their own personal agendas to surpress and blind knowledge contradicts on of the primary and fundamental rules of listing.

"It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one."

Why is the current list so limited?, why do some users feel as though they have the right to violate this rule and force their ideologies on to the template? Once again this template is in clear violation of a neutral-point-view, one of the main arguments for having such a limited "pick-and-choice" list was "those terms are not popular or well known". This logic is no longer, and has never been, a valid argument, and it is appalling that it was used and prevailed as the major factor for decision making in such a sensitive and emotional article.

I have made it quite obvious that this version has no right, and shall not continue, to be in use, a newer, more neutral, version is required. The only morally right thing to do would be to add all orientations to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs)

Just to try to address the more apparent problems with this position. This is a template and not a list. We have included the most common orientations our readers would expect to see - no reason to include the neologism pomosexual - if that is what this is all about. -- Banjeboi 10:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that would be in clear violation of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

':'"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively."

Your "most common" argument violates Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, so unless you have anything further to say, i will equally add other identities.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Template-Class LGBTQ+ studies pages
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles