Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:19, 6 August 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homosexuality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 45 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Homosexuality was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 5, 2006 Good article nominee Listed August 2, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Archives

Index July 2003-August 2003 August 2003-April 2004 April 2004 April 2004-July 2004 August 2004-October 2004 October 2004-March 2005 March 2005-June 2005 June 2005-July 2005 August 2005-December 2005 January 2006-August 2006 September 2006-July 2007 September 2007-May 2008

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

citation to add

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18561014 is a reference for:

A 2009 study also suggested a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual people from the maternal line (but not in those related from the paternal one).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.232.173 (talk)

This appears already to be cited to that source. Rivertorch (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Female sexuality

I have the same issue in Bulgarian wikipedia were discoures on homosexuality are far from scientific. However we share something in common. There aren't enough images of female homosexuality in the major issue about homoesexuality. It is like the homosexuality is predominantly male or of male (may be it is but...?! i still think there is a missrepresentation). There is an issue about lesbian in English and Bulgarian wikipedia but I find that lack of female image of homosexuality repressing, silencing female otherness and deminoring female homosexuality. I would like to call for more attention for representing it if not fully, at least to an extend the female homosexuality both in images and as a history (becuase in modern terms you speak of LGB which is fine...but). If you make a simple search, there is not one mentioning of the word lesbian in the history section. Please pay attention to this. It is like female homosexuality come up from nowhere lol :)))))))) Although it seems female homosexual (homoerotic) relations to be more of literary realm than a penetration itself (penetration as depicted, punished, etc.), I still think they need more attention (in historical aspect). Indeed some words can be put there: even if they are "no evidence but much literary production on behalf of female homosexuality" --Aleksd (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the Lesbian article, which is more comprehensive and coherent than this one, only because so few people actually edit it. Can you explain why the information in that article is not usable? --Moni3 (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There are gay and lesbian issues, but in the homosexuality itself issue no lesbian history or images are found, only male? I guess if you haven't understood my previous post you would not understood this either no metter how simple words I use --Aleksd (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well. I do understand. Male homosexuality gets all the attention and edits. It's more offensive than female homosexuality, which is just hot when the chicks aren't fat. That's me being sarcastic. The Homosexuality article is a tar pit. Unless editors who wish to be involved in it can work together, it will remain a disaster. --Moni3 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not only the battle of discourses on male homosexuality. --Aleksd (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

Under the health header, I want to question the green and light orange boxes that contain some bits of information on how to be safer during sex. I wonder, do these recommendations apply to only homosexual men and women, or is it just general information that could be applied to both heterosexuality and homosexuality. (I realize the citations do target homosexual men and women, however the recommendations in their current forms are not orientation specific).

Currently the Misplaced Pages article on heterosexuality does not contain these boxes or a "health" header at all. Nor does it mention that

"in contrast to its benefits, sexual behavior can be a disease vector."

The wikilink that "disease vector" points to is general information, and the citation (119) in the next sentence right after my quote is to a Canadian site, and is not orientation specific. I think there needs to be some balancing out. I wouldn't want to see potentially valuable information removed, perhaps it should be shared between the articles. There are numerous sources that recommend heterosexuals use these same recommendations... should the citations require changing. --Vlsi0n (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to make it look less obtrusive, contain it within health, and used nicer colour for background. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles don't need to be consistent to one another - the same information can be presented differently or not at all. It would be nice but each article grows on its own. One of the longstanding LGBT issues has been a disparity of access to healthcare coupled with cultural and societal attitudes that LGBT people are diseased. Each of those boxes is labelled accurately to how medical and health professionals view the topic - without regard to sexuality and sexual identity - Men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women. A generalized version of this could be applied to the safe sex and heterosexuality articles if desired. -- Banjeboi 16:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

But the colours are horrid - lilac looks much nicer, and by placing them either side of the section on health, it puts them both on an equal footing. If you want separate colours for boys and girls, I can understanding not using blue & pink, but why use such revolting tones of colour? Mish (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That was lilac? It came off on my end as grey. We can certainly find different colours but the formatting is fine. We're just presenting two boxes so as long as they are both equally sized and in the same section it's a simple matter of choice which is first, you pick, I'm not bothered. -- Banjeboi 10:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It was lilac, but I can make it more vivid. The reason I moved the boxes was that most of the second box fell outside the health section, having them either side (and stretching a bit) allowed them to 'frame' the section, but I guess much of this will depend on the scaling in the browser. When I have time I'll play with the colours. Mish (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Just checked, at 100% it does fit - I use 75% text size on my browser, and it throws the text boxes out, and sticks the edit tabs in the text. So, forget it, and I can't be bothered with the colours - I'm not reading it; if somebody else is concerned with the aesthetics, they can do it. Mish (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I'm usually keen on finding campy colours but in this case kept coming up with neutrality issues, if you do find something give it a try. I know there's a good lavender around. -- Banjeboi 23:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Map to update

The world homosexuality laws map (currently http://en.wikipedia.org/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg) should be updated. India announced that homosexual acts are legal in this country: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/02/india.sex.ruling/index.html --Sigurdas (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Destinero

Case No. S147999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, In re Marriage Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE PARTIES CHALLENGING THE MARRIAGE EXCLUSION, AND BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PARTIES CHALLENGING THE MARRIAGE EXCLUSION

Please convert this to normal case, and replace where you have inserted this as a source using the decapitalised version. Mish (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Japanese same-sex writings should be under East Asia?

I'd like to add, though I don't have an account, Ihara Saikauku's work translating The Great Mirror Of Male Love. This is a collection of Japanese texts, from the Classical Period, documenting male homosexual relationships, glorifying them, and often offering them with morals that are generalizable to all love, all social relationships, and all conduct in the Classical Period. If someone with an account could add a citation, that would be great.

24.130.118.66 (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Romantic" & article lead

The lede has been a point of serious contention in the past. It's still far from perfect, either in the abstract or in terms of WP guidelines, but it does represent a compromise based on consensus. As I see it, the wording as it has pretty much stood for a long time now doesn't exclude other meanings (such as romantic attraction in addition to sexual attraction), but it gets way too wordy and the meaning becomes awkward if we start explicitly putting other meanings in. (For instance, if romantic attraction, why not romantic behavior as well?) Maybe this is a good time to hash out a whole new lede; I don't know. But the way it's structured now, I really think it's best left alone. Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate the precarious balance of text in an article on a subject considered by some to be contentious, and I agree with your objection to the clunky "and/or". However, I cannot agree with placing the article's lead under a hands-off bell jar simply because it has stood in its current form for some arbitrarily "long time"; argumentum ad antiquitam is a logical fallacy. Nor do I agree with placing it off-limits for improvement in its precision and accuracy because some might consider it "way too wordy". We are writing an encyclopædia here: our task is to create articles that clearly define and describe their subject matter. Definitions that don't explicitly include all salient aspects of the subject matter are incomplete, even if they don't explicitly exclude the missing relevant points.

Regrettably though it may be from a lexical standpoint, romantic attraction and romantic behaviour amongst members of the same sex are covered by the English term homosexuality: , , , , , , , , , . That being the well-supported case, it is incumbent upon us to include romantic attraction and behaviour in the lead definition of the term covered by this present article. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think that it is essential to present the romantic aspect of homosexual bonding, and that it must be in the lede, and that it should precede the sexual aspect. Haiduc (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I neither take issue with "romantic" being in the lede nor think that the lede should be untouchable. What I do suggest is that there is no evidence that consensus has changed about the current wording, and therefore, given the contention (involving the lede specifically, not the article in general) in the past, it would be an excellent idea to propose new wording first. That way, we'll be less likely to revisit the same arguments all over again. My goal in making this request is primarily to prevent unnecessary recurring déjà vu moments of drama. Perhaps I'm overly worried about that.

The main problem with the lede, as I see it, is that it is merely a definition when it should be a summary of the article that follows. We might be able to fix that by rewriting the lede and moving the definitions down to the next section, although I'm dubious. The lede would still need to summarize the definitions section, and it would have to do so very succinctly. I'm willing to participate in a complete rewrite, but I strongly urge a sandbox approach. Rivertorch (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought what we had was well-written but if an alternative was presented here for discussion I'm certainly open to anything that would be improving on what we have. -- Banjeboi 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed lead

Homosexuality refers to sexual or romantic attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender. Homosexual orientation means an enduring tendency to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to members of the same sex, and also refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.

—Scheinwerfermann ·_C23:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It reads well. One giant red flag: the phrase "homosexual orientation". There was a serious dispute over that, which resulted in this article being split into two, with a separate Homosexual orientation article. Imo, it was a POV fork based largely on one editor's apparent desire to put a firewall around the concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation, in effect putting gay people who acknowledged being gay but remained chaste into a separate (read: arguably better) class from sexually active gay people. The separate article remained for many months and, after much discussion, was merged back into this article. One of the most compelling rationales behind the merge was that "homosexual orientation" is a term outside mainstream usage, so it would be opening a real can of worms to reinsert it, I think. If you have time, check the archives. (MiszaBot was unleashed here at some point last year, so all this is likely across multiple threads on several archive pages.)

Also, let's keep in mind that if we're doing anything more than another stopgap measure here, the lede, according to guidelines, should summarize the main points of the article, not just define the term. Rivertorch (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I find the use of 'romantic' problematic, in part because it is alien to me (I assumed it was something heterosexuals do), and such a nebulous concept I was tempted to remove it. I had to discuss this with my partner (she has more experience of homosexuality than I do) and she said that when I bake bread or make her a cup of tea, that is romantic. If that is the case, then I guess it's OK. I'm sure people who are homosexual make each other cups of tea or coffee just like people who are heterosexual might. Mish (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Mish, I can't tell if you're being serious or trying for a tongue-in-cheek comment. If you're being serious, please refer to the 10 refs provided above for the legitimacy of including romantic as a core component of homosexuality as currently understood (supplanting earlier, disparaging assumptions that it constitutes nothing more than an aberrant behaviour).

Rivertorch: Oy vey. The lengths to which some (such as the firewall editor you describe) will go to promulgate their own POV! Okeh, that's good to know. I agree with you that the lead should summarise the article and not just define its subject matter — reckoned we'd get past the initial issue of incorporating "romantic" and then work from there. I'll chew on it some more and put forth another proposal soon. In the meantime, anyone else is certainly welcome to do likewise! —Scheinwerfermann ·_C00:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have said "Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or ...." Haiduc (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 1

Here's my next go. The first paragraph defines, and the subsequent ones summarise. The current lead strays from its task and goes into extensively-cited detail about e.g. prevalence; I propose to move that detailed coverage (and associated refs) to the appropriate sections of the article text below the TOC.

Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender. It also means an enduring tendency to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to members of the same sex, and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them. Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species.

The human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately; reliable studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population are homosexual to some degree.

As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is considered to lie within a continuum of human sexuality. It has been both admired and condemned over the course of recorded history. Through much of the 20th century, homosexuality was generally regarded and treated as a behavioral disorder or mental illness. Many homosexuals attempt to hide their homosexuality from others out of fear of violence or rejection; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Gay young people in particular are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide as a result of homophobia. Cessation of this hiding is known as coming out of the closet or simply "coming out".

Since the late 1960s, homosexuality has come to be widely regarded as a normal condition not warranting a cure or treatment, and there has been an accelerating trend towards increased visibility, acceptance, and civil rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, including the rights to marriage and civil unions, adoption and parenting, employment, military service, and equal access to health care. Terms of sexual identity in current use for homosexual people include lesbian for women, gay for men, and LGBT collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all.

This is shaping up nicely. I like how you sidestepped the issue of orientation in the first paragraph by defining the concept without using the word; that works for me. Two questions:

• If we took out the first period and inserted "or" to make it all one sentence, would that sentence be too long? The reason I ask is that the proposed construction might be seen as downplaying the orientation definition by relegating it to the second sentence.
• Can we manage without citations in the lede? I'm not opposed to them per se, but they do interrupt the visual flow a bit and I know a lot of Wikipedians think they are better left for later in an article. Rivertorch (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why we are doing this here instead of in the article, but here goes:

Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender. Homosexuality can be situational if it is temporary and factored by external conditions, or an orientation if these phenomena manifest as an enduring tendency reflected in an individual’s identity and membership in a community of others who share them. Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species.

The human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately; reliable studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population are homosexual to some degree.

As a sexual orientation, homosexual orientation is considered to lie within a continuum of human sexuality. Same-sex love and sexuality has been both admired and condemned over the course of recorded history, depending on place and time and the form it took. Through much of the 20th century in Western culture, homosexual behavior was generally regarded and treated as a behavioral disorder or mental illness. Many people hide their homosexual activity or orientation out of fear of disapproval or violence; in the West they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Cessation of this hiding is known as coming out of the closet or simply "coming out". Young people experiencing homosexual feelings are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide as a result of homophobia.

Since the late 1960s in the West, homosexuality has come to be widely regarded as a normal condition, and there has been an accelerating trend towards increased visibility, acceptance, and civil rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, including the rights to marriage and civil unions, adoption and parenting, employment, military service, and equal access to health care. Terms of sexual identity in current use for homosexual people include lesbian for women, gay for men, and LGBT collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all.

Haiduc (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• First point - it was not only treated as mental illness, but as criminal activity.
• Second point - you should only refer to 'homosexual romance' in the lead if there is a section that deals with 'homosexual romance' in the body of the text, as the lead is a summary of what is in the body, and having ten sources does not count for much unless the terms are unpacked somewhere in the main text. All these seem to show is that people like Giddens (who is a notable sociologist, but no authority on sexuality, sexology, LGBT studies in general or homosexuality in particular) use the term. If there were a link to an article Homosexual romance, which shows the term can be taken for granted, fine - otherwise it needs to be dealt with in the article before it can be inserted into the lead.
• Third point, my earlier comment about this was made with ironic and humorous intent, because I have only come across the term 'romance' used in this context, at conferences, ironically or critically. Just because a term is used in sources does not mean that it can be used in the lead when it is not in the text, for example, "Homosexuals deserve to be executed or tortured" Mish (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This version is quite non-sensical. "Homosexuality can be situational if it is temporary and factored by external conditions" is UNDUE weight. Def shouldnt be in the lead. Its also too Western centric. In West this in west that. "Since the late 1960s in the West, homosexuality has come to be widely regarded as a normal condition". WORLD health organization removed homosexuality as a mental disorder and few countries disagree with this.

I'll add more later. Phoenix of9 (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Phoenix, that is exactly my point. The lede IS too Wester centric, and has been so all along. So, if you are going to make all these generalizations which are applicable largely to the Western ambit, you must qualify them as such, or else risk leaving readers with a false impression that was is true of the West is true of everybody else as well. So let's be sure to NOT be ethnocentric.

And let's not skew things too much in the favor of the "gay orientation" side either. I have read (though I did not keep the ref), in light of the recent Iranian murders of the two boys involved with each other, that most if not all Iranian boys fool around. And that is just one example. From a historical perspective, situational prevails over orientation. So yes, it needs to be treated at the outset, or, again, risk being ethnocentric. Haiduc (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Find sources then. Anectodal stories dont really matter. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 2

Rivertorch, I see your point about refs, but it seems to me we ought to support at least those assertions most likely to catch the eye of POV-pushers seeking to worm their opinions in. As for your other question: Yes. Removing that period would make the sentence too long, IMO. I agree with you, Haiduc and Phoenix, that the lead needs expansion to account for substantial differences in perspective and status at the international level, and to increase emphasis on the situational side. I've done so below with more internal links. I don't agree with your preference, Mish, to quash the inclusion of romantic. We have ample reliable support for the inclusion of romantic, so in it should go. You definitely raise a valid point that it needs coverage in the main text of the article, but I'm not convinced by your argument that this valid, supported, and apposite term should be kept out of the lead until it is well covered in the main text. Please remember that the state of most articles on Misplaced Pages is unfinished; we're working towards incremental improvement here. When romantic is included in the lead, if one of us participating in this thread doesn't do the work to get a start including it in the main text, sooner than later somebody else will. If that doesn't happen in some reasonable amount of time, then it will be appropriate to discuss removing it from the lead. I do, though, agree with your excellent reminder that homosexuality was (and in many places still is) a crime. Please take a look:

Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender. This may be situational, or it may be in the context of an enduring tendency to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to members of the same sex. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is considered within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum of human sexuality, and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.

Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species. The human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately; reliable studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population are homosexual to some degree. It has been both admired and condemned throughout history according to various societies' sexual norms. Through much of the 20th century, homosexuality was generally prohibited by law and treated as a behavioral disorder or mental illness. The United Kingdom partially decriminalized homosexuality in 1967, the U.S. American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from their list of diseases in 1973, the World Health Organization did likewise in 1990, and homosexuality has been delisted as a disease and decriminalized in many countries. However, the legal status of homosexuality varies widely by country and there remain jurisdictions in which homosexuality is a crime with severe penalties including death.

Many homosexuals attempt to hide their homosexuality from others out of fear of violence or rejection; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Gay young people in particular are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide as a result of homophobia. Cessation of this hiding is known as coming out of the closet or simply "coming out". Since the late 1960s, homosexuality has come to be widely regarded, especially in the West, as a normal condition not warranting a cure or treatment, and there has been an accelerating trend towards increased visibility, acceptance, and civil rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Terms of sexual identity in current use for homosexual people include lesbian for women, gay for men, and LGBT collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all.

It is too vague. What does it mean to say that "homosexuality" was a crime? The feelings? The actions? The romantic part? The sexual part? Which sexual part? The whole thing is an oversimplification and misleads the reader. It was not homosexuality that was illegal, since there is so much that is included by that term, but only certain aspects of homosexual expression, which may have varied from place to place. What was true in England was not true in France and certainly was not true in Italy. And we have not even left Europe yet. Haiduc (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it vague, or is it concise? This what we're discussing is a lead; it's meant to convey a concise overview summary of what's to be covered in detail in the article. I think "Homosexuality is punishable by death in some places" is a reasonable, concise summary of the situation; obviously greater coverage is needed in the article (after the lead) as to the details of what exactly is illegal, in which countries, and which precise acts are punishable by death under what specific circumstances. The lead is not the right place to go into that kind of detail. Likewise, while the circumstances surrounding the U.K. decriminalisation in 1967 are complicated and warrant substantial coverage, "Homosexuality was partially decriminalized in the U.K. in 1967" suffices for the lead. Do you have a better suggestion for how to summarise these salient points in the lead, without trying to cram the entire article into it? —Scheinwerfermann ·_C16:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Since the late 1960s, homosexuality has come to be widely regarded, especially in the West" is stupid. China has 1.4 billion people, more than the population of the West. Yet it doesnt regard homosexuality as a mental disorder. There are prolly more Xtian conversion therapy crap in US than in China altho US population is much lower. "especially in the West" is not warrented. "Since the late 1960s" ignored stuff like ancient Greek times. Current version reads better.

"Since the Stonewall riots in 1969, widely considered the start of the modern LGBT rights movement, there has been increased visibility, recognition and legal rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, including the rights to marriage and civil unions, adoption and parenting, employment, military service, and equal access to health care." Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that wording like 'homosexuality is a crime' needs to read more like 'homosexual acts are treated as criminal' (or whetever). I agree that the lead is a summary of the body of the article, and for that reason I don't agree on the inclusion of 'romance' in the lead when there is no mention in the text, in the hope that somebody someday will get around to this. This is not a personal whim, it is indicated in WP:MOS. This is more critical when there is no article on Homosexual romance itself, and skimming articles on Romance there are no sections on homosexuality either. I doubt I would be the only person who found it confusing to see this in the lead, and when seeking more information could find nothing on this in the encyclopedia that I could follow up on to expand the reference. Not very encyclopedic at all, and while this may be a deficiency in the enclyclopedia, I don't see using it as a reference in the lead of one article addresses the deficit. I am intrigued and keen to learn what homosexual romance is all about. Mish (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 3

Mish, I can see how anyone could easily have missed the article's existing references to romantic relationships; they were not very conspicuous within an awkwardly-named subsection. I have made them more conspicuous and bolstered their support with this edit. Furthermore, the main article linked from the relevant section of this article — Same-sex relationship — has as its first sentence A same-sex relationship can take one of many forms, from romantic and sexual, to non-romantic close relationships between two persons of the same gender. (emphasis mine). So while I definitely think this aspect needs considerable expansion, it is present in the article, and has been for some time. This would seem to satisfy your objection to romance being present in the lead.

Phoenix of 9, you also raise a good point—even if you do it with unproductive words like "stupid"—with regard to China (and now India). I don't think I agree with putting Stonewall in the lead, for that would skew it very heavily towards the U.S. experience. Here's another proposal:

Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender. This may be situational, or it may be in the context of an enduring tendency to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to members of the same sex. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is considered within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum of human sexuality, and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.

Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species. The human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately; reliable studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population are homosexual to some degree. It has been both admired and condemned throughout history according to various societies' sexual norms. Through much of the 20th century, homosexuality was widely treated as a behavioral disorder or mental illness, and homosexual behaviour was prohibited by law. The United Kingdom partially decriminalized homosexual sex in 1967, the U.S. American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from their list of diseases in 1973, the World Health Organization did likewise in 1990, and homosexuality has been delisted as a disease and decriminalized in many countries. However, the legal status of homosexuality varies widely by country and there remain jurisdictions in which homosexual behavior is a crime with severe penalties including death.

Many homosexuals attempt to hide their homosexuality from others out of fear of violence or rejection; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Gay young people in particular are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide as a result of homophobia. Cessation of this hiding is known as coming out of the closet or simply "coming out". Since the late 1960s, homosexuality has increasingly come to be generally regarded as a normal condition not warranting a cure or treatment, and there has been an accelerating trend towards increased visibility, acceptance, and civil rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, though substantial disapproval of homosexuality is still prevalent around the world. Terms of sexual identity in current use for homosexual people include lesbian for women, gay for men, and LGBT collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all.

Rev 4

Forgive me, I edit compulsively. Let me try for more brevity and a bit more specificity. We can not refer to "homosexuality" as an "it" when it really is a "they". Also, identity cannot be situational, so it cannot go in the first sentence. Conversion "therapy" is such a minor quirk it has no business in the lede. The focus on blame is inappropriately negative, it must be preceded by, and balanced with, praise. "From others" is redundant, since that is who we usually hide from. The 3rd para repetition of H not being a disease is redundant, we heard that already. Same for disapproval still persisting.

Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex. This may be situational, or it may be the expression of an enduring tendency to experience such attractions primarily toward members of one's sex. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is considered within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum of human sexuality, and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.

Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species. The human prevalence of homosexual orientation is difficult to determine accurately; studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population are homosexual to some degree. Particular aspects have been admired or condemned throughout history according to various societies' sexual norms. When praised those aspects have been seen as a way to improve society. When condemned, those homosexual activities were seen as either a sin or a disease, and some homosexual behaviour was prohibited by law. Since the second half of the 20th century homosexuality in general has been delisted as a disease and decriminalized in most developed countries. However, the legal status of homosexuality varies widely by country and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are a crime with severe penalties including death.

Many homosexuals hide their feeling and activities out of fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Gay young people in particular are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide as a result of homophobia. Choosing open expression of one's homosexual orientation is known as coming out of the closet or simply "coming out". At the present time there is an accelerating trend towards increased visibility, acceptance, and civil rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Terms of sexual identity in current use for homosexual people include lesbian for women, gay for men, and LGBT collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all.

Haiduc (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to forgive (except perhaps the trivial housekeeping matter of not putting a subhead above your rev for easy section editing ;-) I've taken the liberty of doing so, hope you don't mind.) ! I like your revision quite a lot. The only quibbles I think of are minor:

1. Open expression of one's homosexual orientation is known as coming out of(...). In fact, only the transition from hiding to open expression of one's homosexuality is known as "coming out". Ongoing such expression is not known as "coming out", but rather as "being out". For this reason, I prefer something closer to my proposed wording ("Cessation of this hiding(...)"). I'll bet we can figure out an optimal compromise here.
2. At the present time there is an accelerating trend(...) This, to me, makes the phenomenon seem more sudden and recent than it actually is. Certainly the trend is presently accelerating at a rate unprecedented in the last century, but there's been a well-documented trend in this direction since the late 1960s; I think we should say so to provide accurate historical context for the reader. What do you say? —Scheinwerfermann ·_C01:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 5

Thank you for all that. Actually, I had surreptitiously fiddled with the text, maybe even as you were writing your comments, so I will copy it below and revise it as per your suggestions (and who knows what else.) I also moved and edited the text on young people and homophobia, its previous placement rankled.

Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex. This may be situational, or it may be the expression of an enduring tendency to experience such attractions primarily toward members of one's sex. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is considered within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum of human sexuality, and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.

Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species. The human prevalence of homosexual orientation is difficult to determine accurately; studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population are homosexual to some degree. Particular aspects have been admired or condemned throughout history according to various societies' sexual norms. When praised those aspects have been seen as a way to improve society. When condemned, those homosexual activities were seen as either a sin or a disease, and some homosexual behaviour was prohibited by law. Since the second half of the 20th century homosexuality in general has been delisted as a disease and decriminalized in most developed countries. However, the legal status of homosexuality varies widely by country and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are crimes with severe penalties including death.

Many homosexuals hide their feeling and activities out of fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Openly declaring one's homosexual orientation is known as coming out of the closet or simply "coming out". Starting in the mid-1900s there has been an accelerating trend towards increased visibility, acceptance, and civil rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Nevertheless, homophobia persists, and in particular young people subjected to it are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide. Terms of sexual identity in current use for homosexual people include lesbian for women, gay for men, and LGBT collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all.

Haiduc (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel like we're narrowing in on a good lead, but I don't like Starting in the mid-1900s. That would refer to roughly the year 1905, which is not what's intended. "Mid-late 20th century" would work, as would "Late 1960s". I like how you've reworded the homophobia reference and the coming-out language, but I need to think for awhile about your placement of the former. Also, how defensible is the assertion When praised those aspects have been seen as a way to improve society? That's sure to be challenged; can we back it up robustly? —Scheinwerfermann ·_C02:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right about the mis-statement. However, thinking about it, the liberation movement actually started in England in the eighteen hundreds and Hirschfeld in Germany at the turn of the century. How about "Starting in the eighteen hundreds in western Europe same-sex love culture began to emerge from the shadows. The trend towards increased visibility, acceptance, and civil rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people accelerated in the second half of the twentieth century and continues today."?

Yes, we can defend the statement with the Greeks and the Japanese. Maybe we can have a collaboration on an article, Historical praise of homosexuality? Haiduc (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ulrichs came before anything in England, and published liberationary pamphlets in the mid-19th century. Then came Edward Carpenter in England, who blended socialism, mysticism and homosexual emancipation, then Hirschfeld in Germany. The more recent homosexual equality movement in England started in the 1950s, followed by the lesbian and gay liberation movements in the 1960's. So, in relation to recent homosexual emancipation, the 1950s would be more accurate in an article on homosexuality (rather than gay lib from the 1960s), but the origins of homosexual emancipation can be traced back to the 1860s. Mish (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking of Byron and his circle, William Johnson Cory, Carpenter, and the Uranians, but all these are details. I think as long as we touch upon the nineteenth century as marking the first stirrings of freedom, and the mid-twentieth C as when they began to really gather steam, we will be fine. Haiduc (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 6

Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex. This may be situational, or it may be the expression of an enduring tendency to experience such attractions primarily toward members of one's sex. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is considered within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum of human sexuality, and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.

Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species. The human prevalence of homosexual orientation is difficult to determine accurately; studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population are homosexual to some degree. Throughout history, various societies' sexual norms have admired or condemned homosexuality; in the latter case it has been treated as a sin or disease and homosexual behavior prohibited by law. Since the second half of the 20th century homosexuality in general has been delisted as a disease and decriminalized in most developed countries. However, the legal status of homosexuality varies widely by country and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are crimes with severe penalties including death.

Many homosexuals hide their feelings and activities for fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Openly declaring one's homosexual orientation is known as coming out of the closet or simply "coming out". Efforts toward emancipation of homosexuality as presently understood began in the 1860s; since the mid-1950s there has been an accelerating trend towards increased visibility, acceptance, and civil rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Nevertheless, homophobia persists, and in particular young people subjected to it are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide. Terms of sexual identity in current use for homosexual people include lesbian for women, gay for men, and LGBT collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all.

—Scheinwerfermann ·_C20:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on a parade here, but concentrating on the lead of this article is a noble and brave but misguided effort. Leads summarize the content of the article, and this one is long, but that does not mean it is well-researched and comprehensive. Instead, it covers information that dozens or hundreds of editors have decided are important issues, and has gone through a crisis and response kind of editing pattern where reversion and arguments here on the talk page concentrate on a single paragraph, sentence, or source.

I was asked to overhaul this article and I declined because it would be a never-ending battle. However, it could probably be done over the course of several months with a group of dedicated editors of any ideological persuasion as long as they had the best sources and writing as their top priority, and agree to certain issues: not to use religious writings to prove scientific theory for example, to give full weight to religious ideas in the appropriate section, and style points like not citing issues more than three times, bumping further cites to a notes section. The lead is the last part of the article that should be written.

If you asked several editors who have worked on this article or participated on the talk page to list the most recurring issues on the talk pages, these issues would indicate where the strongest sources are necessary. Get editors to work in twos to build specific sections. There are ten sections right now. Sources, actually should determine how many sections there are. Are there 20 editors who worked on this article and are available to research and write a section? Could the effort to write this article be a model for clusterf*cks that have gone to ArbCom and such? In my wildest dreams. --Moni3 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with you. For one thing, improvement of any aspect of an article is seldom misguided, even (as is usually the case) there are other aspects of the article also in need of improvement. Most articles on Misplaced Pages are incrementally improved in fits and starts, not according to any prescribed master plan laying out a rigid order of operations to be followed. Certainly we don't delay improvements to the lead, as you seem to be suggesting, simply because the rest of the article is not "finished". Most articles on Misplaced Pages are unfinished; that is the nature of this project. You're more or less right that writing the lead is one of the last steps in producing an article for an ink-on-dead-trees encyclopædia, but this is not an ink-on-dead-trees encyclopædia.

You say the lead covers information that dozens or hundreds of editors have decided are important issues, and you're correct. That is known as consensus, and is a key part of how this project works. You also say this article has gone through a crisis and response kind of editing pattern where reversion and arguments here on the talk page concentrate on a single paragraph, sentence, or source, and you're correct there, too; this is known as the bold-revert-discuss cycle, and is another aspect of how this project works. This what we're covering is considered by some to be a contentious topic, so the frequency and intensity of discussion and debate are naturally higher than on, say, Strawberry.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of your having been asked to overhaul this article and declining because it would've been an endless battle. Sometimes an individual will tackle a major cleanup of an article in need. If the article covers a contentious topic, that individual can become a focal point for intense debate and discussion, but in any case article content, tone, and style are still determined by consensus, and no individual owns the article.

Finally, the proposed lead in its latest form is fully compliant with the applicable provisions of WP:LEAD, which does not seem to include the concerns you raise here. To wit, the proposal:

• serves both as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article, and
• stands alone as a concise overview of the article, and
• defines the topic, establishes context, explains why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarises the most important points including any notable controversies, and
• presents material in rough accord with its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and
• is not more than four paragraphs long.

It is to be hoped that the article text as a whole will continue to be gradually improved. However, no good is served by delaying one necessary improvement until a list of other improvements is complete. You have not presented anything to persuade me to discontinue this present effort at lead improvement. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C14:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentally, we are approaching material and article quality from completely separate philosophies. Misplaced Pages allows the bold, revert, discuss style and consensus, but look at where it gets articles that are controversial. It simply does not work. It makes articles incoherent and leads to endless squabbling on talk pages. But it's what the majority of Wikipedians seem to accept as the best that can be done. If I'm the only person on the talk page to say this, then I'm not surprised, but it represents an approach far below what editors are capable of. Instead, it promotes the least common denominator. Volunteers that have access to the best possible and most comprehensive reliable sources are able to set high standards and meet them. There is no reason a group of dedicated and skilled editors would not be able to get this article to FA quality within three months. The discipline, will, and clearly, a common reason to improve the entire article must be in place. This is not the case at this point, unfortunately.

Nevertheless, I wish you luck in this endeavor. My purpose in participating in this discussion was to state that the editors who frequent this article should step back and consider the totality of it as opposed to a section. My response to you is to assert that there higher standards are possible, and the way things are done in most articles is not the way it must be done. --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I see this as a situation where everyone is right. The concerted group effort is fine if it can coalesce. Tough here, because I would guess that editors on LGBT topics are even more individualistic that the average Wiki editor, and that is saying a lot. Until such a project comes together, the sort of hit-and-run tactic of taking sections one at a time, as we have been doing with the lede, is the next best approach. It's a somewhat Darwinian process, but look where that has got us. Haiduc (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Haiduc (i.e., with both Moni and Scheinwerfermann). The article as a whole would benefit from a thorough overhaul, and the lede should be rewritten at the end of that process to reflect the new content. Until that happens, significant improvements can be made in a piecemeal fashion, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be. "Endless squabbling on talk pages" is, imo, vastly preferable to edit wars, which is why I suggested drafting a new lede here. Rivertorch (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 7

I would like to merge rev 5 and 6, since I do not see how we can honestly stand by the generalizations that are implied by the unqualified use of the term "homosexual." For example, in the first sentence we claim that H is attraction or behavior. Then we go on to say that H was prohibited. What was prohibited? The attraction? The behavior? What behavior? Kissing and handholding? Raping little boys? The whole thing makes no sense, and is simply a vague blank screen for people to project their personal beliefs and prejudices. Even in the lede, especially in the lede, things must be spelled out as clearly as possible. Let me give this one more try:

Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex. This may be situational, or it may be the expression of an enduring tendency to experience such attractions primarily toward members of one's sex. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is considered within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum of human sexuality, and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.

Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species. The human prevalence of homosexual orientation is difficult to determine accurately; studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual orientation. Throughout history, individual aspects have been admired or condemned according to various societies' sexual norms. When praised those aspects have been seen as a way to improve society. When condemned, particular activities were seen as either a sin or a disease, and some homosexual behaviour was prohibited by law. Since the second half of the 20th century homosexuality in general has been delisted as a disease and decriminalized in most developed countries. However, the legal status of homosexual relations varies widely by country and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are crimes with severe penalties including death.

Many homosexuals hide their feeling and activities out of fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Openly declaring one's homosexual orientation is known as coming out of the closet or simply "coming out". Efforts toward emancipation of homosexuality as presently understood began in the 1860s; since the mid-1950s there has been an accelerating trend towards increased visibility, acceptance, and civil rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Nevertheless, homophobia persists, and in particular young people subjected to it are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide. Terms of sexual identity in current use for homosexual people include lesbian for women, gay for men, and LGBT collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all.

Haiduc (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point; I like your use of homosexual relations in the part about legal status. That makes it much clearer. Another part of your proposal, though, seems not to be an improvement. You propose The human prevalence of homosexual orientation is difficult to determine accurately. That's true, but the more encompassing difficulty we're trying to convey is that of determining the prevalence of any/all aspects of homosexuality (as we define it here) amongst humans, whether it be physical sex amongst same-gender individuals, pursuit of romantic relationships amongst same-gender individuals, open or hidden self-identification as homosexually oriented, or whatever combination or permutation of these. You're correct that it is somewhat difficult to determine the prevalence of homosexual orientation amongst humans, for some who are thus oriented won't admit it. But that is only a part of the difficulty we're trying to convey, not the whole of it. I think The human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately does a better job of accurately and completely representing the referent difficulty.

You also propose studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual orientation. That's not so. The studies, in general, suggest between 2% and 20% of the population exhibit some degree of homosexuality as we define it here (i.e., romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same gender). A subset of those studies looks at the prevalence and relative strength of declared homosexual orientation, but here again, I think some degree of homosexuality is the more accurate representation of the totality what we're trying to convey; it includes those who consider themselves basically straight but who have sex with members of the same gender, those who consider themselves 100% homosexual, and everyone in between. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C19:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both observations, please amend accordingly. The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is the absolute implication of that 2 to 20 figure. That does not allow for universal homosexuality, which may well be the rule in most if not all human societies when unencumbered by religious fetters. The 2 to 20 may simply be an irreducible minimum. So I would propose this, "The current human prevalence of homosexual orientation is difficult to determine accurately; studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual orientation, though in many previous cultures homosexual relations were the rule rather than the exception. Throughout history, individual aspects have been admired or condemned according to various societies' sexual norms." What say you? Haiduc (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point on the figures. "The rule rather than the exception" might not be the best way to phrase it, though. How 'bout The current human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately. Studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual tendency, though in many previous cultures homosexual relations were extremely common. Throughout history, individual aspects of homosexuality have (...) Whatchya think? —Scheinwerfermann ·_C21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Zazaban (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Extremely common" is ok, so is "prevalent and normal." We need to convey the universality as well as the centrality of the custom. What do you think? Haiduc (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. A bit more encyclopedic too. Zazaban (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I can't help thinking that the first paragraph would be stronger without its second sentence. The "this" is potentially vague, the sentence breaks up the flow, and it just doesn't seem important enough to lead off the article in the way it does. Rivertorch (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev 8

Incorporating latest suggestions to come up with this latest proposal. Haiduc, I like prevalent but not normal; this implies that homosexuality is (presently considered) abnormal, which is opposite to the present philosophical trend. Rivertorch, I haven't struck the second sentence altogether, but I've combined it into the first and deëmphasised it. Whatchya think?

Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex, situationally or in an enduring tendency. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is considered within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum of human sexuality, and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.

Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species. The current human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately. Studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual tendency, though in many previous cultures homosexual relations were extremely prevalent. Throughout history, individual aspects have been admired or condemned according to various societies' sexual norms. When praised those aspects have been seen as a way to improve society. When condemned, particular activities were seen as either a sin or a disease, and some homosexual behaviour was prohibited by law. Since the second half of the 20th century homosexuality in general has been delisted as a disease and decriminalized in most developed countries. However, the legal status of homosexual relations varies widely by country and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are crimes with severe penalties including death.

Many homosexuals hide their feeling and activities out of fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Openly declaring one's homosexual orientation is known as coming out of the closet or simply "coming out". Efforts toward emancipation of homosexuality as presently understood began in the 1860s; since the mid-1950s there has been an accelerating trend towards increased visibility, acceptance, and civil rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Nevertheless, homophobia persists, and in particular young people subjected to it are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide. Terms of sexual identity in current use for homosexual people include lesbian for women, gay for men, and LGBT collectively, though some prefer other terms or none at all.

Good collaborators, good process, good result. Haiduc (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Much better. I wonder if "tendency" might be replaced by either "orientation" or, if that seems too foreshadowy, "disposition". (I won't quote definitions from any particular dictionary, but try looking up the three words and see if you see what I mean.) The rest of it seems quite carefully worded, and nothing jumps out at me in terms of undue weight. One minor point: I'm not 100% sure about the last sentence. The phrasing—"Terms...for homosexual people include..."—suggests that "lesbian", "gay", and "LGBT" are supposed to be nouns, although generally only the first one should be used as a noun (and some people consider that problematic). Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, 'adjectives' should replace 'terms', as 'gay' as a 'noun' is problematic. Also, LGBT does not collectively refer to people who are 'gay' or 'lesbian', it also includes people who identify as 'bisexual' and 'transgender' (and some include 'intersex'), who are not homosexual and may not identify as 'lesbian' or 'gay' either. So you need to reword this to say that LGBT includes lesbian and gay, rather than being a collective term for homosexual, or leave it out. Mish (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rev 9

Rivertorch, I like your suggestion to replace tendency by disposition (orientation is troublesome; please see above). Excellent catch (and you, Mish) on nouns vs. adjectives and imprecision regarding LGBT. Voici:

Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex, situationally or in an enduring tendency. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is considered within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum of human sexuality, and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.

Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species. The current human prevalence of homosexuality is difficult to determine accurately. Studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual disposition, though in many previous cultures homosexual relations were extremely prevalent. Throughout history, individual aspects have been admired or condemned according to various societies' sexual norms. When praised those aspects have been seen as a way to improve society. When condemned, particular activities were seen as either a sin or a disease, and some homosexual behaviour was prohibited by law. Since the second half of the 20th century homosexuality in general has been delisted as a disease and decriminalized in most developed countries. However, the legal status of homosexual relations varies widely by country and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are crimes with severe penalties including death.

Many homosexuals hide their feeling and activities out of fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Openly declaring one's homosexual orientation is known as coming out of the closet or simply "coming out". Efforts toward emancipation of homosexuality as presently understood began in the 1860s; since the mid-1950s there has been an accelerating trend towards increased visibility, acceptance, and civil rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Nevertheless, homophobia persists, and in particular young people subjected to it are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide. Adjectives in current use for homosexual people include lesbian for women and gay for men—though some prefer other terms or none at all—and homosexual people are included in the broader term LGBT.

This reads much better, except that lesbian and gay identified people are included in the acronym LGBT, but not people who are homosexual and do not identify as part of LGBT. This is why I specifically worded in my response as the preferred 'gay' and 'lesbian' to 'homosexual'; if 'homosexual' is used, then this should be qualified as being those who identify as being part of LGBT. For example, radical-feminist and lesbian journalist and writer Julie Bindel has been very clear that she does not have any wish to be lumped in with a lot of folks defined by odd sexual characteristics as 'LGBT... ', and within the conservative Christian ex-gay movement, people tend to identify themselves as trying to reduce their homosexual dispositions in contrast to identifying as gay/lesbian or LGBT. Mish (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rev 10

It looks like probably the best way forward is to strike LGBT altogether. There are plenty of links to it elsewhere on the article page. Shall we make it an even ten, then?

Homosexuality refers to romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex, situationally or in an enduring disposition. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is considered to lie within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum of human sexuality, and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.

Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species. The prevalence of homosexuality among humans is difficult to determine accurately. Studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual tendency, though in many earlier cultures homosexual relations were highly prevalent. Throughout history, individual aspects of homosexuality have been admired or condemned according to various societies' sexual norms. When praised, those aspects were seen as a way to improve society; when condemned, particular activities were seen as a sin or a disease, and some homosexual behavior was prohibited by law. Since the middle of the 20th century homosexuality has been gradually delisted as a disease and decriminalized in most developed countries. However, the legal status of homosexual relations varies widely by country and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are crimes with severe penalties including death.

Many homosexual people hide their feelings and activities out of fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Openly declaring one's homosexual orientation is known as coming out of the closet or simply "coming out". Efforts toward emancipation of homosexuality as it is currently understood began in the 1860s; since the mid-1950s there has been an accelerating trend towards increased visibility, acceptance, and civil rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Nevertheless, homophobia persists, and in particular young people subjected to it are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide. Adjectives in current use for homosexual people include lesbian for women and gay for men, though some prefer other terms or none at all.

—Scheinwerfermann ·_C16:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I was suggesting "disposition" for the last word in the first sentence. Rivertorch (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not edit that before anybody else comments, so there is no misunderstanding. Mish (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Shazam! —Scheinwerfermann ·_C18:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than create yet another section, I made some changes to Rev 10 above in the hope that comparing the diff would be easier than other methods. (If anyone wants it in a new section instead, feel free to copy, paste, and revert—it's fine with me.) Most of my changes are of the copyediting sort intended to make the wording clearer, but some do potentially change the perceived meaning. Rivertorch (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I like your copyedits, and am leaning towards considering them the finishing touches. The traffic at this discussion has slowed considerably, which is making me think we have developed it to the point of consensus for installation of the above as the article's new lead. Any future quibbles or questions can be decided in new discussions here on the talk page — what do you think? —Scheinwerfermann ·_C16:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We might give it a little longer and see if anyone else has thoughts. (It being Monday and all.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing (and it's not just Monday, it's also Awkwardly-Named Holiday Day!). Let's give it another day or so, then go live if no big objections come forth. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. Mish (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re the recent 'second half' →　'middle' change, is the listed ref supposed to support this point? Dhilvert (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My minor tweaks just now were purely grammatical — One cannot properly say since the second half of (whatever time period). Either In the second half of or Since the middle of is fine, though because the delisting and decriminalisation has continued into the 21st century, only Since the middle of the 20th century is an accurate description of the timeframe. As for your question regarding the ref, I think it probably ought to be removed and not replaced; as discussed ↑above↑, the detailed discussion and supporting refs are best contained in the main article text. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C03:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. One final question from me: should we use consistent spelling throughout the article? I personally don't care whether it follows American or Canadian/British conventions, and I'm not even bothered when an article flips back and forth, but the guidelines suggest internal consistency. (E.g., Rev 10 contains both behaviour and decriminalized.) Rivertorch (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It also contained both behavior and behaviour. I've arbitrarily modified this for the initial occurrence (Am. spelling). Dhilvert (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that'll've probably been my fault; having lived outside the U.S. for awhile, it's now an effort to remember to use U.S. spellings when that's appropriate. Good catch. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The change was not purely grammatical. 'Since the middle' much more strongly suggests a shift occurring in mid century than does the prior revision (however grammatically dubious). A possible (but awkward) replacement might be 'Starting in the second half of'. Dhilvert (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can't say it was delisted "starting in the second half of the 20th century", since the delisting itself was ephemeral. We could try splitting the sentence into two sentences, the delisting and the decriminalization, I suppose. My brain is operating at reduced power today. Want to have a go? Rivertorch (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't wish to get into a grammatical pissing match; go see Strunk & White or Funk & Wagnall. I've added "gradually" to convey the temporally spread-out nature of the delisting and decriminalisation without resorting to syntactic contortions. We could easily substitute progressively if that is thought to be preferable Dhilvert, I trust this addresses your unhappiness? —Scheinwerfermann ·_C23:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happiest to see edits occurring directly in the article, and I see no reason why Rev. 10 as it stands could not be substituted in, but as for the above, Rivertorch might be right to suggest that the two points be handled separately. Not only does Homosexuality#Legality mention decriminalization starting prior to the middle of the century, but there are examples of decriminalization occurring even earlier (e.g., in Japan). Alternatively, some sort of vague language such as In recent history could be used to refer to decriminalization and delisting considered together.

If you do remove the delisting reference from the text (as discussed earlier), it would be nice to add it somewhere else in the article. (If it is already there, then I have missed it.) --Dhilvert (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've quite a few quibbly points with Rev 10, are all previous revs done already? And how do you wish new input to go? Just edit the draft or write out each one or something else? -- Banjeboi 01:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy, paste, and edit box, and then we can slug it out. --Haiduc (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, seems ironically fruitless, once we're only discussing one version I'll be happy to rejoin. I really can't cope discussing four versions at once. -- Banjeboi 21:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just put this in and squibble over the little details later? Zazaban (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I'm not sure where your confusion is coming from. We are discussing only one version. The point of keeping the various revs is to make the conversation more efficient, not to create competing versions of proposed leads. Each new rev supersedes the previous, but the previous is not deleted. This way, everyone can see how the discussion has progressed without having to slog through diffs and revision histories. The last tweaks to Rev 10 have been minor housekeeping type fixes; we appear to have (contextually) broad consensus to insert Rev 10 as it presently stands as the new lead, and so I am going to do so now. Of course, like the rest of the article, it will be subject to continued discussion and improvement by consensus.

Dhilvert: Yes. The ref's a good one, it just wants placing more aptly. I'll see to that in the lead-replacement edit I'm about to make. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C23:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems now only Rev 10 is showing, so do I change the text to what I think it should be or present new wording? Or do I do something else? -- Banjeboi 11:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

All previous revs can still be viewed; up at the top of this section you'll see "Compacted discussion through Rev 9", and by clicking the adjacent Show button, you'll expand all the previous discussion. At any time, you or I or anyone else can put up another revision (it would in this case be Rev 11) for comment, but it sounds like the best way to start would be for you to present your ideas as comments here in this present thread so they can be discussed. What do you find objectionable about the lead as it presently stands in the article, and why, and what would you prefer, and why? —Scheinwerfermann ·_C14:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rev 11

I've copied and pasted below the edit of Phoenix of9, since this seems to have become the de facto revision 11. The associated edit comment reads: "situationally is covered by "behaviour". Pathological models were non existant b4 19th century. Please do no delete and/or's. Orientation def was incomplete" (edit comment of Phoenix of9) --Dhilvert (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality refers to romantic and/or sexual attraction and/or behaviour among members of the same sex. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is considered to lie within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum of human sexuality, and refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to" people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."

Homosexuality is found in virtually every animal species. The prevalence of homosexuality among humans is difficult to determine accurately; studies suggest between two and twenty percent of the population exhibit some degree of homosexual potential, though in many earlier cultures homosexual relations were highly prevalent. Throughout history, individual aspects of homosexuality have been admired or condemned according to various societies' sexual norms. When praised, those aspects were seen as a way to improve society; when condemned, particular activities were seen as a sin or a disease, and some homosexual behavior was prohibited by law. Between late 19th century and middle of the 20th century, homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder but due to failure of scientific studies to support this position, it was delisted from mental disorders list. Homosexual relations were decriminalized in most countries during the second half of 20th century but other rights of homosexual people varies widely by country and there remain jurisdictions in which certain homosexual behaviors are crimes with severe penalties including death.

Many homosexual people hide their feelings and activities out of fear of disapproval or violence; they are commonly said to be "in the closet". Openly declaring one's homosexual orientation is known as coming out of the closet or simply "coming out". Efforts toward emancipation of homosexuality as it is currently understood began in the 1860s; since the mid-1950s there has been an accelerating trend towards increased visibility, acceptance, and civil rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Nevertheless, homophobia persists, and in particular young people subjected to it are at greater risk of socialization difficulties, drug abuse, and suicide. Adjectives in current use for homosexual people include lesbian for women and gay for men, though some prefer other terms or none at all.

Most notably, I think the and/or should go. There comes a point at which additional precision doesn't help the reader, and I think this is one of those times. Also, while situationally might be encompassed within behavior, it is not implied by it, so I think the former should be kept. --Dhilvert (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, "and/or" worsens rather than improving anything. I see additional problems with this proposal, as well. Relative to Rev 10, its wording is awkward and ungrammatical and flows poorly. The newly-proposed text…

Between late 19th century and middle of the 20th century, homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder but due to failure of scientific studies to support this position, it was delisted from mental disorders list. Homosexual relations were decriminalized in most countries during the second half of 20th century (…)

…is especially problematic; it undoes a carefully-constructed description of the timeframe in which homosexuality was delisted and decriminalised, and replaces it with the assertion it was delisted from mental disorders list. This is not only ungrammatical, but provides no information regarding timeframe. The following assertion (…)decriminalized in most countries during the second half of 20th century is likewise ungrammatical, and also less historically accurate than the present lead text. India, for example, just decriminalised homosexual behaviour a few weeks ago, well into the 21st century.

As for the proposal to change some homosexual tendency to some homosexual potential, I must disagree with this one, as well. "Homosexual tendency" clearly and accurately describes the phenomenon at hand. "Homosexual potential" seems vague and not readily definable; certainly we haven't defined it here and I don't see an advantage to defining it so as to be able to use it, given that it will still be less precise and less accurate than tendency. Moreover, the phrase homosexual potential could be construed to have negative connotations.

—Scheinwerfermann ·C20:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Etiology

I'm reverting Jjk's change of this section heading. It's true that "causes" is a simpler word and thus may be clearer for the casual reader, but I don't think it's more accurate. While "etiology" can mean "causes" (specifically in terms of a disease or medical condition, which doesn't work for the topic of this article), it also means "the investigation or attribution of the cause or reason for something, often expressed in terms of historical or mythical explanation", which works pretty well here as a definition. Nothingcauses homosexuality any more than anything causes heterosexuality. The section in question deals quite specifically with investigations and explanations of why some people are homosexual, and "etiology" describes the content of the section well enough. Rivertorch (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with your reversion. Causes can be seen to have negative connotations, where etiology is more neutral. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C20:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How about "origins", to keep it more accessible? Haiduc (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I like that even better: Nice and neutral like etiology, nice and accessible like causes. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C00:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Origins of the epidemic. Origins of the Cold War. Origins of World War I. Origins of bipedal hominids. It suggests that homosexuality can be traced back to some definable genesis, but is there any evidence that that is so? "Etiology" makes sense because it indicates investigation or attribution, which is precisely what the section goes on to describe. Rivertorch (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You've a point there. Really, I'm okeh with etiology or with origins or with roots, but not with causes. We may want to provide a discreet link (perhaps a wiktionary link etiology), though it appears Wikt defines ætiology as "The study of causes or origins". —Scheinwerfermann ·_C05:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Origins has a different meaning to etiology. Etiology is fine. Mish (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

'homosexuals', 'heterosexuals' and 'non-heterosexuals'

I have edited these references, as using terms such as these as nouns is deprecated WP:MOS#Identity, , , , , 'Gayle' p.4, etc. Mish (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work, thanks for that. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C14:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Good intentions

I am glad that my good intentions were recognized, but I think there is a problem if we do not put in the sub-headings, since we have a "Main Article" template for the section referring us to "Same-sex relationships" and then the second (of two) paragraphs in the section is discussing not same-sex relationships, but opposite-sex relationships. What is this section supposed to be about?--Bhuck (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your changes to the text strike me as improvements, but I don't think the subheadings are necessary. The section is primarily about same-sex relationships. Rivertorch (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-consensus edits to lead

Phoenix of 9, with this edit you unilaterally made substantial changes to a consensus lead developed through extensive discussion in which you yourself participated. That certainly doesn't mean the new lead is untouchable, but it does make your unilateral changes seem uncoöperative and less than productive. If you have concerns about the present lead language, let's please discuss them here on the talk page and see if consensus develops to make further adjustments. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C18:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I was bold. The concerns were in the edit summary. You just reverted w/o addressing any of them. Can you not read? "situationally is covered by "behaviour". Pathological models were non existant b4 19th century. Please do no delete and/or's. Orientation def was incomplete" Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I did revert, because you made a unilateral change against consensus, without first discussing it and building new consensus. Boldness is best tempered by thoughtful consideration: This is a contentious topic, and the lead was developed through very extensive discussion, so just up and changing it without discussion really isn't helpful, and "I was bold" really isn't very responsive or coöperative. The talk page here, and not the edit summary, is the right place to discuss changes. "Can you not read?" isn't a helpful remark. I did read your edit summary, and it seemed uncomfortably close to MPOV. Please raise your concerns here in complete sentences and let's see how the collaborative discussion goes. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C19:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand ""situationally is covered by "behaviour". Could you clarify what you mean? Rivertorch (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann,

1) Your refusal to understand is also counter productive and not helpful. Referring to MPOV here seems like a personal attack. This is also counter productive and not helpful. Please see WP:NPA.

2) "Pathological models were non existant b4 19th century." means that your lead is incorrect as it implies that homosexuality was considered a disease until 20th century. This is incorrect. Disease/mental disorder view started in 19th century, not 1000 BC. Do you finally get it?

3) Tendency to potential. A word change. What part do you not comprehend?

4) "Orientation def was incomplete" means that orientation definition was incomplete. Currently the lead is like this: "As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is considered to lie within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum of human sexuality, and refers to an individual’s identity based on those attractions and membership in a community of others who share them.".

As a sexual orientation, homosexuality does not ONLY refer to an individual’s identity.

5) Situational sexual behaviour is sexual behaviour. People who engage in "situational homosexual behaviour" are still engaging in homosexual behaviour even if they do not consider their orientation to be homosexual.

6) Please do not WP:OWN the article. Do not make unnecessary reverts behind the mask of upholding a consensus. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your accusational, confrontational tone is neither productive nor warranted, and I will not engage with you at that level. Let's try for a civil discussion about the language in the lead.

You're right, of course, that situational homosexual behaviour is a subset of homosexual behaviour in general. Looking back through the discussion by which the present lead was devised, it seems to me the word situational is not redundant as you appear to consider it; placed as it is, it serves to clarify that some people engage in homosexual behaviour even though they do not consider themselves homosexually oriented.

You're also right that homosexuality as an orientation doesn't refer merely to an individual's identity; the present lead language does not make such a claim. It does give context to the term and refers to our main article on sexual orientation, which seems appropriate given that the lead's job is to give a summary overview of the contents of this present article. Sexual orientation does not lend itself to a quick one-liner definition, which is why we refer the reader to the main article on that subject.

I'd like to learn more of your thoughts regarding what you perceive as a problem with the wording regarding pathology. You say pathological models were nonexistent before the 19th century; can you reliably support this? What change, specifically, would you favour for this part of the lead's wording?

Your point #3 does not make sense to me, for the word potential you seem to object to does not appear in the lead. Perhaps you meant to comment on the relative merits of tendency vs. disposition; if so, please refer to ↑the discussion on that very matter↑.—Scheinwerfermann ·_C20:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we discuss this above? --Dhilvert (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann, again, your refusal to understand is also counter productive and not helpful. "Tendency to potential" I changed tendency to potential. Whats your problem with that? You also said:

"I'd like to learn more of your thoughts regarding what you perceive as a problem with the wording regarding pathology. You say pathological models were nonexistent before the 19th century; can you reliably support this? What change, specifically, would you favour for this part of the lead's wording?"

It seems that you havent even read psychology section in this article. Why are you editing the lead if you even havent read the article. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please adopt a less combative, more coöperative tone. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C20:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article first if you want to improve it. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How 'bout we both go have a nice cuppa tea, keep in mind that we're all interested in improving this article (probably none of us is interested in spoiling it), and talk productively about what adjustments to the lead might be warranted and supported by consensus? —Scheinwerfermann ·_C20:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Existing ref 1
2. Existing ref 2
3. Existing ref 1
4. Existing ref 2
5. Reference
6. Existing ref 3
7. Existing ref 1
8. Existing ref 2
9. Reference
10. Existing ref 3
11. Existing ref 3
12. Existing ref 1
13. Existing ref 2
14. Reference
16. Existing ref 3
17. Existing ref 1
18. Existing ref 2
19. Reference
21. Existing ref 3
22. Existing ref 1
23. Existing ref 2
24. Reference
26. Existing ref 3
27. Existing ref 1
28. Existing ref 2
29. Reference
31. Existing ref 3
32. Existing ref 1
33. Existing ref 2
34. Reference
36. Existing ref 3
37. Existing ref 1
38. Existing ref 2
39. Reference
40. Politics as friendship By Horst Hutte; p66
42. Existing ref 3
43. Existing ref 1
44. Existing ref 2
45. Reference
46. Politics as friendship By Horst Hutte; p66
48. Existing ref 3
49. Existing ref 1
50. Existing ref 2
51. Reference
52. Politics as friendship By Horst Hutte; p66
54. Existing ref 3
55. Existing ref 1
56. Existing ref 2
57. Reference
58. Politics as friendship By Horst Hutte; p66
60. "APA Help Center - Health & Emotional Wellness - "Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality"". American Psychological Association. 2007. Retrieved 2009-07-26.
61. "Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality", APAHelpCenter.org, retrieved 2007-09-07 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
62. Case No. S147999 in the Supreme Court of the State of California, In re Marriage Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365(…)
63. Politics as friendship By Horst Hutte; p66

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class ethics articles
• Mid-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Delisted good articles