Talk:Homosexuality

Sex and gender

As I understand it, the reason this article begins "Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender" is that someone whose sex is female could be in a homosexual relationship with someone whose sex was male, provided they shared the same gender. I realise that this distinction is not straightforward to many people (and, as a linguist, I'm aware that the term is used in a different sense in linguistics). There may, indeed, be a better way of making the distinction clear in this article—although I'm not entirely sure I see how, without linking to the articles, as is already done here. However, before any change is made, it should be discussed here. garik (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I am having difficulty imagining a better way to cover this important point than the present way which has both sex and gender mentioned and linked. I don't think this part of the article is problematic; the trouble seems to arise only amongst readers who can't or won't be bothered to click the links and replace their guesses and assumptions with knowledge. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I thinks its fine as is. Sex and gender are two distinct subject matters in genetics (sex) and psychology/sociology (gender). Readers having trouble understanding can click the link to the main articles. Otherwise, you may specify "homosexuality usually refers to attraction to ones own biological sex, but can also refer to attraction to those who share the same gender identity" or something to that effect. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason we include (and link) "sex" and "gender" is because, like Bookkeeperoftheoccult said, one covers biological sex and the other covers psychology/sociology. Male=sex. Man=gender. And seeing as the term homosexuality is applied to non-human animals as well, but "gender" applying to them is less accepted, it makes even more sense to include "sex." The World Health Organization source "What do we mean by 'sex' and 'gender'?" is pretty clear on how "sex" and "gender" are distinguished, though it's also strict because it only talks about humans, ignores gender identity (which Garik was talking about)...and ignores the fact that, as the Gender article states, ...the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word. Think about it. How many times have we heard/seen people use these words interchangeably? All of this is why I find these edits[1][2] by the user contesting the word confusing. Gender hasn't only meant "grammatical categories" for a long time now.

The current wording of "between members of the same sex or gender" is fine and should not be changed to something more complicated. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I will make my original point one last time. A male having sex with a female is NOT engaging in lesbian sexual activity REGARDLESS of his internal gender orientation. The word homosexual relates to persons of the same sex. It has absolutely nothing to do with their internal mental orientation. That is a separate and different concept entirely. The wording "between members of the same sex or gender" is entirely inappropriate and is both historically incorrect and misleading. The definition should be simplified by correcting it to state exactly what the word means - relationships between persons of the same sex - males with males and females with females as you view them by physical characteristics alone. Wikipedia is here to explain things, not confuse them. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 21:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

But this doesn't confuse anything. You keep talking as if somewhere there's a stone tablet on which the definitions of words were carved by God, and on which the word "homosexual" is defined as "romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex, regardless of gender". But there's no such tablet, that's not how language works, and I'm pretty sure that's not how most relevant researchers understand the term "homosexual". Now, I'm sure that many people understand the term to exclude couples where each member is of a different sex, regardless of their gender; you're clearly one of them. That's fine. You can use words however you want in all sorts of spheres of life. But Wikipedia is not one of those spheres. Here you have to find consensus. And, as I understand it, the consensus is that a person with an X and Y chromosome could certainly be called a lesbian. So if you want to change the article, you're going to have to provide reliable up-to-date sources to support your claim to the contrary. garik (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The word is homoSEXUALITY. It is about the sex of the participants. That's what the word means. The word gender means something else. It is obvious. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 23:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Svanslyck, there is nothing inappropriate about having both "sex" and "gender" in the lead. My above statement on the matter is clear about how the two terms are distinguished and are even used interchangeably. If you cannot understand that, I don't know what else to tell you. But WP:Consensus and reliable sources are against you on this one. Sexual orientation and sexuality are about more than just physical attraction. As the American Psychological Association states, "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions." That shows gender is included. People are not only sexually attracted to the physical, but the mental/sociological. Since you are so caught up on physical, let me be clear (if I wasn't already) that "gender" can encompass the physical as well -- how men and women dress, act, etc. That is part of what sexually attracts people. Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the form of the word, Svansklych: I think you're falling into a trap known as the etymological fallacy. It's an easy one to fall into. I'll try to make the fallacy clearer by taking the word midwife as an example. Now, the form of the word midwife seems to imply that a midwife is necessarily a woman (to people unaware of the older broader, meaning of the second morpheme, it might even seem that she must be a married woman). This, however, is obviously misleading. Both men and woman can and do work as midwives, and the word is standardly used to refer to people of both sexes. Anyone protesting that the word is midWIFE, and that the Wikipedia article on the topic should refer only to women who deliver babies, would be mistaken. You are similarly mistaken about homosexuality. The fact that it contains the morpheme sex is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the term can properly be used to refer to a relationship between two people of the same gender, but different sexes, just as the etymology of midwife is irrelevant to the question of whether a man can work as one. In other words, the meaning of a word is very often not the sum of the meaning of its morphemes. To understand what a word means, one has to pay attention to how it is used. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we should pay particular attention to how it is used by relevant professionals; the APA is one such body of relevant professionals (in fact, it's one of the most influential and relevant). garik (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC) slightly amended by garik (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

kcylsnavS, you've made your point "one last time" and now you are repeating yourself. Unless you can come up with substantial, reliable sources to support your point of view—which so far you have not—it is probably time for you to realise consensus is not going your way, and let it drop. Please, thank you, and you're welcome. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an extremely serious problem with using "homosexuality" in this way. That reason is the following passage:

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically determined, not chosen, cannot really be changed, that prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people causes psychological harm,[3] and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects." ”

This set of propositions is ONLY true of homosexuality when it refers to sex. Homosexuality being contingent on a social variable like gender would imply, given this passage, that the current research states one's sexual orientation can haphazardly cause people to stop being attracted to other people merely by virtue of the other people changing genders, or merely by virtue of a person pretending to be a particular gender. If this has been studied and is true, it needs to be sourced. The passage above cites a reference that ONLY endorses that homosexuality is biologically determined when it refers to attraction to the same sex, not the same gender. I will leave that up for now, but if no one gets a source explictly stating this, or no one removes the above passage, I'll put up the following new definition tomorrow: "Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex". As a sidenote, another very serious problem is that this definition implies homosexuality can be a choice, since it refers to behavior. For this reason I propose splitting the definition between "homosexuality as an orientation" which is not a choice and "homosexuality as behavior". They are two different definitions, much like the word "pen" has more than one definition and the two have little to do with each other. 198.151.130.156 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz.

Not only is the above passage not in the article, due to the collaboration of editors in the #Religion POV in intro (RFC) section below, what you are stating makes no sense to me. Seriously, if you are kcylsnavS, just sign in already.

No. Using "gender" does not imply that people can "stop being attracted to other people merely by virtue of the other people changing genders," no more than it does in the Heterosexuality article. First of all, people don't often change their gender. Second of all, "sex" and "gender" can (and often do) mean the same thing, as I showed above. But when they are distinguished, it is because one is referring to biological sex and the other is referring to the social roles/behaviors/styles that go along with that. A woman who is sexually attracted to men is not only sexually to men based on his biological sex, but typically also because he "behaves like a man." If the man were to suddenly start dressing/"acting like a woman," then, yes, she may stop being sexually attracted to him. But that is not what we are implying by using both "sex" and "gender"; we are using both, per everything stated above. Sexual orientation has to do with both. Read over what was stated again. You are wrong when you say "The passage above cites a reference that ONLY endorses that homosexuality is biologically determined when it refers to attraction to the same sex, not the same gender." As I already stated, the APA says:"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions." That shows gender is included. People are not only sexually attracted to the physical, but the mental/sociological.

That is pretty damn explicit. Just because it does not use the word "gender" in those lines means nothing; it uses gender categories ("men" and "women") and is clearly not only talking about biological sex. At one point in the source, it even says, "Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex." Other sources in this Wikipedia article definitely use "gender" when referring to sexual orientation. So all of that means you are wrong. Plain and simple. Change the lead without consensus, after this was already settled two months ago, and you will be reverted.

My side note? "Behavior" does not imply that homosexual sexual orientation is a choice. We are talking about homosexuality. Emphasis on "ality." That means we are not only talking about the sexual orientation, but the behavior as well. For example, there are many men who have sex with men who do not identify as homosexual. Despite whatever their sexual orientation/identity may be, their behavior is indeed homosexual. Sexual orientation is not a choice, no (to most people anyway), but sexual behavior is. This is also why homosexual individuals can engage in heterosexual behavior. The APA source I just cited again also clearly states "behavior." We use "behavior" in the other main sexual orientation articles, too. I suggest you read up more on these topics, and stop trying to alter text to suit your personal definitions. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem remains, as I had previously enumerated, that homosexuality denoting a preference towards a particular socially constructed group entails that homosexuality is socially constructed. E.g. that homosexuality is not biologically determined. This is not the common thesis of sociologists, psychologists, or philosophers of love, and they are the experts on this subject. If anyone has a source that explicitly states that homosexuality refers to an orientation romantically towards the socially constructed concept of "men" and the socially constructed concept of "women" when referring to an individual who is either a man or a woman respectively, then please cite that source. The APA source certainly does not suggest that, and is clearly using "men and women, or both sexes" to denote biological sex, not gender. 198.151.130.137 (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz

I'm not going through all this again. I'll just say you are wrong, WP:Consensus is against you, and refer to my above posts. All violating consensus is going to get you is reverted and blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The above does not dispute anything I've stated. 'Homosexuality' has two distinct definitions, one referring to orientation, and one referring to behavior. Just as 'pen' has two distinct definitions, as a writing utensil and as a container for farm animals. However, this is not clear from the initial sentence. On your explicit reasoning what would be appropriate is "homosexuality is either the sexual attraction or orientation towards members of the same sex, in which case it is commonly understood to be biologically determined, or sexual behavior involving members of the same sex or gender". Again, that you don't see that distinction as incredibly important is baffling given that you have already agreed that behavior and orientation are not the same thing, and orientation is not a choice while behavior is. I do not intend to make any edits (I haven't yet) until all discussion on the matter is settled and an agreement is reached, but if my novel criticism is simply unaddressed after a significant amount of time, I will make the appropriate edits.198.151.130.154 (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz

The above disputes your arguments sufficiently. Your arguments for why the lead should not simply say "sex or gender" makes no sense. At all. The same way your having stated that including "behavior" implies that a homosexual sexual orientation is a choice, but it appears that you let that go after I explained why you were wrong about that. Yes, I know the distinction between sex and gender, and I also know that they usually largely overlap, and that there is often no distinction. Things you don't seem to understand. This is why your saying "gender" should be omitted is nonsensical to me. It shouldn't be omitted for the same reason that you say homosexuality is about orientation and behavior. I have made it very clear that sexual orientation is about sexual attraction to one's behavior almost as much as it is to one's sex. Gender is not just about behavior anyway. And there is the matter of transgender people who have not undergone hormones and/or sex reassignment surgery to alter their appearance, which Garik stressed above. Or simply the topic of transgender people. Chaz Bono who has not yet undergone sex reassignment surgery, for example, identifies as a man, despite his biological sex being female. Despite that his chromosomal makeup will always identify him as female. Therefore, if we want to be technical with the terms "sex" and "gender," his partner is also sexually attracted to his gender. No matter what others think, they are classified as a heterosexual couple. To only go by "sex," as you want us to, is to say that homosexuality is all about sexual attraction to one's biological sex. Transgender people show us that this is not true. Researchers show us that this is not true. The only way "sex" means what it does in Bono's case when it comes to your definition is if you mean Bono's legal status as male or Bono's mind possibly being male. On the flipside of that, only using "sex" implies that Bono is homosexual. While many people still view him as female and as a lesbian, he does not view himself that way, and is not legally female. So bottomline: Sexual orientation is clearly not only about one's biological sex. People may be classified as a homosexual couple if one is a biological male and the other is not but does identify as male, and some people are sexually attracted to people who do not identify as male/man or female/woman but as a third gender or by some other term. That you do not see this and keep arguing that homosexuality is all about "attraction to the biological sex" is baffling to me.

An agreement was reached. In order to bypass previous consensus, you need to form new consensus. Read WP:Consensus. Further, we've already tackled the "biologically-determined" aspects of the lead, per the #Religion POV in intro (RFC) section below. Sexual orientation is not only biologically-determined, and researchers are not in agreement that it always is. You cannot proceed to change consensus wording just because you think you are right. You need to convince other editors to go along with you. You have not done that so far, or provided anything other than your own opinion for why you are right. This is why I said altering the lead to your preferred wording will only get you reverted...and blocked if you continue to violate consensus through editing.

Also, you might as well sign in as kcylsnavS. You haven't denied that you are him, and have pretty much admitted to being him. I will now reply to Noformation below. Flyer22 (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My gender studies are rather shallow (covered gender issues and homosexuality in ethics courses up to the 3000 level) but with what I do know regarding the distinction made in academia I am inclined to agree with the IP that gender is a separate issue from homosexuality. I haven't read the source but if I've read this thread correctly, the source does not omit gender. If this is the case (and I'll check it later for myself) then I think we might be running into what could be the first test of "V" instead of "V not T," in the sense that this might be verifiable but not correct. I'll do some more research and see if I can find a better source, one that preferably makes the distinction, so that we can talk about adjusting the lede accordingly. N^oformation ^Talk 00:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, the IP is wrong, per everything stated above by myself and others. So I am tempted to ignore the IP from here on out, whether he is signed in as kcylsnavS or not. I covered the distinction you speak of as well. Yes, gender is a separate issue from homosexuality. So is biological sex, so is behavior and romance when talking about those things in their own rights. But these things have to do with homosexuality, as in they overlap, just as they have to do with other sexual orientations. I also pointed to the Gender article which also tackles the distinction between "sex" and "gender" with reliable sources. Its lead says:

Depending on the context, the discriminating characteristics vary from sex to social role to gender identity. Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word "gender" to refer to anything but grammatical categories. However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, like feminist literature, and in documents written by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), but in most contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word.

The IP is wrong because not only can "sex" and "gender" mean the same thing, researchers have designated "gender" as a part of sexual orientation as well. That is clear from the APA source I have cited. It talks about gender categories, behaviors (which are also a part of gender), identities (which no doubt includes gender identity; see the topic of transgender people I just mentioned above to the IP; the APA even says "also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions"), romantic attraction and sexual attraction. The source not using the exact word "gender" is irrelevant when the source is clearly describing gender aspects. Not just that source, but other sources in the article. And, as I just mentioned to the IP above, when one is sexually attracted to a transgender person who has taken on "the look" of the gender they perceive themselves to be, but has not undergone hormones or sex reassignment surgery to alter their appearance, it is obviously not that person's biological sex that the individual is attracted to. In the case of two men, where one is biologically male and the other is not, gender attraction is without a doubt playing a role there. So to stress once more, sexual orientation is not just about an attraction to one's biological sex. Why the IP is not understanding this is beyond me. Why he is focused on the "gender" use in this article, but not the Heterosexuality article and related sexual orientation articles is beyond me as well, and rather suspicious. Flyer22 (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Several things should be addressed here:

1. I am not ky-whatever his/her name is. If you like you can check my IP against his/hers. I am uninterested in his/her intentions and am only interested in clarifying something very important, that is that the current wording of the article implies that homosexuality (as a sexual orientation) is socially constructed, which, while it is a common thesis of many fundamentalist christians and pseudo-scientists, is not the general consensus of most biological psychologists and sociologists.

2. As to consensus, this is explicitly why I have never edited the article, ever. I have put up some propositions about serious things that need editing with some arguments in favor of those propositions. Several people have raised objections to these of the form "these propositions are not true". However, such claims are irrelevant without source material. Absolutely no scholarly source I know of cites homosexuality as anything other than biologically determined, by virtue of prenatal hormones or genetic components. If you would like to cite a scholarly source which confirms some sociological statistically significant phenomenon causing people to be gay, then your thesis can hold water. As it stands now our current definition is uncited (since the APA directly contradicts it by only stating homosexuals are attracted to "men, women, or both sexes" utilizing 'men' and 'women' as sexes, not genders).

3. There does not seem to be an active topic on sex and gender on the heterosexuality discussion page. So now that you mention it, I will be starting one now. 198.151.130.132 (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz

Check your IP? Have you ever heard of a proxy? We can't check your IP against a user's unless it involves two registered users anyway, per the identity policy issues mentioned in WP:User check.

I've got nothing else too significant to say to you. My arguments hold up. Yours do not. I cite instances and sources. You do not. You cite the APA and then twist it to suit you. You can't say that "the APA directly contradicts it by only stating homosexuals are attracted to 'men, women, or both sexes' utilizing 'men' and 'women' as sexes, not genders" as an argument. That is your interpretation. All it shows to me is that the terms "sex" and "gender" are used interchangeably, as I just made abundantly clear above. What is not interpretation is that they are using gender categories -- men and women -- instead of the sex categories male and female. What is not interpretation is that they are not only speaking in terms of only being sexually attracted to one's sex. They have a long definition of sexual orientation in which they are also discussing things that have to do with gender and gender identity. And that you completely blew over the transgender topic shows that you are wrong. The transgender topic shows that you are wrong regardless. Using "gender" does not imply "that homosexuality (as a sexual orientation) is socially constructed." Using "gender" says that sexual orientation (in this case, homosexuality) is also about gender, which it is. The transgender topic puts the finality on that, really. Saying that our stance on "these propositions" is irrelevant without source material is simply false. We have source material. Plenty in the article. And you are missing the whole point of WP:Consensus. WP:Consensus is not irrelevant, and it is formed without source material all the time. Just because you haven't changed anything in the article yet doesn't mean you respect consensus. The fact that you are saying that if you don't get your way, you are going to violate consensus shows that you don't respect consensus. And per the "Religion POV in intro (RFC)" section below, which you obviously haven't taken the time to read through, you are wrong that "absolutely no scholarly cites homosexuality as anything other than biologically determined." The APA and other sources in this article make it quite clear that sexual orientation is not only biologically-determined. More so that researchers do not know what causes sexual orientation, but that they generally believe it to be a combination of "biology and environment." That part of the lead is sourced. We even have a section on it in this article (See Fluidity of orientation), which is discussed in great detail in the Sexual orientation article. What does the APA have to say about what makes a person's sexual orientation? Well, the following: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

I went over what researchers generally believe causes sexual orientation explicitly below. And you know what? I provided sources, along with my extensive knowledge on the subject. You will not find any peer-reviewed sources saying that the scientific community generally believes sexual orientation to only be biological. And if you want to debate that, then I suggest you take it to that section below, where I have already debated the hell out of it, and provide WP:Reliable sources to back you up. As I mentioned, you are going by your personal opinion with nothing to back it up. I have backed up my arguments. Tenfold. You can take your campaign to each and every sexual orientation article, but you are wrong and will not be getting your way on this matter. "Gender" isn't just used at the Heterosexuality article either; it's used in the lead of the Sexual orientation article, as well as the related sexual orientation articles. And that is due to everything I stated above on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Religion POV in intro (RFC)

Compacted back-discussion

As in the section above, NARTH is not fully recognized as a professional group because it holds unpopular opinions. Additionally, attempts are made to grossly editorialize around discussion of religion. See above discussion. Posting as an RfC to break the block of standard editors here. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 12:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

not sure what you are asking, but i do think that religious points of view are important, relevant and acceptable on this topic. i know nothing about narth, so i can't say yea or nay on that specific one. Soosim (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A quick read of the talk issues and I agree with Soosim. Religious viewpoints are important here, especially because of their controversial nature. They should be presented in ways that do not disparage those who hold them. Additionally, the group "NARTH", whether "fully recognized" or not, I do not know, but it seems the perspective they have does have some validity to it. Inclusion of this perspective, or any other unpopular perspective (particularly ones that—in this case—gays and lesbians—find objectionable) should not be dismissed just because they don't like the conclusions. Senator2029 | talk 18:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And what this RFC is about? I really can't figure out from the intro. If the question is should the religious POV be included in the lead section of the article (because there is already section "Religion" in the article), than the answer is probably Yes. If the question is should NARTH be included in the lead section, and presented as a "professional" organization, than the answer is No. There is already section "Sexual orientation change efforts", where NARTH is mentioned. Organization founded in 1992. without any international reputation can't be included in the lead section of the Homosexuality article.--В и к и T 18:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• In this RfC, there should be "... a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template ...", from WP:RFC, and it is also suggested that the editor keep the "statement or question simple and succinct, so that the RfC attracts a clear and actionable response." To me, it's not clear if supporting in the RfC would mean supporting the inclusion or the exclusion of a reference to NARTH in the WP:LEDE, and whether it should be considered a professional association, or not. Or is this RfC intended to be just a threaded discussion without the usual support/oppose statements, but opened up to a wider audience. — Becksguy (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• If the issue here is whether NARTH should be mentioned or cited in the lede then that is simple: no. It's not an international scientific institution, it's a small group of people gathered together to promote their opinion. However the lede is poor in the construction of the end of the second paragraph, where it moves about the subject in an unnatural way (forgive the pun). The use of 'in spite of' is a POV laden phrase, whole religions are misdescribed as 'sects', scare quotes appear, and 'mainstream scientific understanding' is introduced in a way so as to bludgeon its opponents, also a form of POV writing.

“ It is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice against homosexual and bisexual people, by contrast, has been shown to have such effects.[3] In spite of this, some religious sects and "ex-gay" organizations hold the view that homosexual activity is a sinful or dysfunctional behavior. Contrary to mainstream scientific understanding, some of these sects and organizations characterize it as a "choice".[4] ”

I suggest the following rewrite:

“ It is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Some religions and theological interpretation holds that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and there exist "ex-gay" organizations which seek to bring homosexual people back to heterosexual orientation and behaviour. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm.[3] Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood although some maintain that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] ”

Just a quick draft but I do think the lede could do with a bit of NPOV attention. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your rewrite suggestion.--В и к и T 13:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"Bringing them back to heterosexuality" presupposes that they were heterosexual in the first place.--DVD-junkie | talk | 14:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that part must be reworded.--В и к и T 15:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

How about this, in which I've reworked the "back to…" language, added two apposite links, and moved the crucial "Mainstream scientific understanding…" text closer to the top:

“ It is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood, although some maintain that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] Some religious and theological perspectives hold that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and there exist "ex-gay" and conversion therapy organizations which seek to change homosexuals into heterosexuals or at least to cease homosexual behaviour. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm.[3] ”

—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not just end the sentence at "disfunctional", and drop all mention of ex-gay groups altogether. This is the lead of a top level article, and ex-gay groups are probably too fringe to warrant mention here. As the ex-gay movement is practically entirely religiously motivated, the first half of the sentence already covers them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Okeh, how 'bout this:

“ Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood, is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people, however, has been shown to cause psychological harm.[4] Some religious and theological perspectives hold that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and some contend that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] ”

—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• I for one feel that the current wording of the part of the paragraph in question is fairly good, but Scheinwerfermann's rewrite is also a good alternative. However I feel that certain parts of the rewrite should be rephrased/changed, and that it would be better written as follows:

"Scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, is biologically determined, cannot be changed, and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people, however, has been shown to cause such psychological harm.[4] Some religious and theological perspectives hold the view that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and some contend, incorrectly, that homosexuality is a free choice.[4]"

The parts which I have altered are in green, and here are my reasons for any alterations:

1. "Mainstream" may be redundant - Scientific understanding is the mainstream scientific understanding.

2. Fixed by adulthood is a bit unclear, it should be clearly stated that scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, and that scientific studies are increasingly showing a biological cause for sexual orientation. I've also added in "and that homosexuality" to make clear what we're talking about in relation to "is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects".

3. Minor change just to link this phrase to the previous one.

4. Should be made clear that it is their opinion/view.

5. Minor change to make it uniform with the first sentence.

Also the part the red should perhaps be rephrased to maybe "religious sects" or to another phrase, but I'm not too sure how it should be rephrased.

--Scientiom (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

How about "some religious denominations"? That would encompass sects and the catholic church.--DVD-junkie | talk | 12:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I also wonder though if we should generalize it to just "some people, groups, or organizations", because that's what it is isn't it? But that also brings me to question of whether that needs to be there at all (the last sentence) - this is, after all, a medical/mental health topic primarily, not about the views of certain groups, organizations, or people who have no expertise at all in the topic. --Scientiom (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

We need to convey the facts accurately, but we need to do so with tight, flowing text that doesn't trip the reader or hit him/her over the head. We also should try to avoid setting ourselves up for squabbles and edit wars based on the perception of POV bias, such as is caused by words like "incorrectly". Let's try some copyediting:

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically determined, not chosen, cannot really be changed, that prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people causes psychological harm,[3] and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Nevertheless, some religious and theological perspectives consider homosexual orientation or activity to be sinful or dysfunctional, and some contend that homosexuality is a voluntarily chosen lifestyle.[4]" ”

—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, fairly good rewrite - I'd chop off the "really" from "cannot really be changed" - it doesn't seem very professional with the "really" and may confuse the reader. The rest is well written, but I still have objections to the last sentence - is opinion like that really warranted on an article which really a mental health / science topic? And if it need be there, does it have to be in the lead? --Scientiom (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's a pretty good rewrite, and also question whether the last sentence should be in the lead at all for the same reason you gave. As far as mainstream mental health and science go, it represents a fringe position, and it has no scientific basis. The objections of Jehovah's Witnesses to blood transfusions is not mentioned in the lead of Blood Transfusion, but are briefly summarized in the body of the article. The same should be done with religious views, all the more so because there is already an article on the topic. Two, in fact: Religion and homosexuality and LGBT matters and religion. Since this is a top level article, religious views should be summarized briefly in the body of the article, with links to the above-mentioned articles. I see no need to mention them in the lead at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I inserted really because "ex-gay" and "conversion therapy" advocates play shell games with the definition of "change"—counting as "changed" a homosexual who has been shamed and browbeaten into an opposite-sex marriage or into putative celibacy, for example. If we object to the word choice per se because "really" is frequently used as a colloquial emphatic, perhaps we could change it to "actually", but I do feel something needs to be there to connote a refutation of religious dogmatics babbling about how "change is possible". As to the last sentence, I hold no strong position on whether it should be included; I can see both sides of that debate. If we want to deal with the religious perspectives later on in the article, that's certainly fine by me. So, how 'bout:

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically determined, not chosen, cannot truly be changed, that prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people causes psychological harm,[3] and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. ”

—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, except that the "truly" is distracting. I see no need for a qualifier here. It actually weakens the statement. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree to keep specific mention of NARTH out of the lead. But I do believe that something about ex-gay groups should be mentioned in the lead for the reasons that Scheinwerfermann has stated in the past and above in this section. I'm unsure, however, about saying "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically determined," because, as the lead of the Biology and sexual orientation article (which is backed up by sources) says, "No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment." Researchers are not in agreement that sexual orientation is simply a biological matter and that's it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Really, I prefer the previous lead. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is wiki-ignorance on my part, but as well-written as Scheinwerfermann's suggestions are, I have a question about "some contend that homosexuality is a free choice." Specifically, the word "some." Every time I see that on a wiki article, someone has added the "who?" template. Also, although I'm sure there are individuals who contend it's a free choice on non-religious grounds, the primary force behind that line of thinking is religious. Religious objection to homosexuality is mainstream enough that I think it belongs in the lede; conversion concepts and organizations, on the other hand, are NOT mainstream enough to warrant mention in the lede, I think. Mreleganza (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

H'm. Which proposal are you looking at? The latest proposed text does not include "some contend that homosexuality is a free choice", but even if it did (or even if that text does wind up in the lede), it's supported by reference to a reliable source, thus answering the "Who?" question before it is asked. I don't see the issue you see. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been a bit WP:BOLD and have altered the section in question: [3]. --Scientiom (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Good move. That was long overdue. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted, partly per what I stated above -- "Researchers are not in agreement that sexual orientation is simply a biological matter and that's it." Further, the Sexual orientation article mentions how sexual orientation is not always stable over time. For some people, and I don't mean people were closeted and later came out, their sexual orientation has changed. That very section is also in this article. The proposal that Scientiom added is not only somewhat inaccurate, it is a run-on sentence that sounds like it has something to prove. I suggest going with Scheinwerfermann's second proposal:

“ Mainstream scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is fixed by adulthood, is not a mental disorder, and is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people, however, has been shown to cause psychological harm.[4] Some religious and theological perspectives hold that homosexual orientation or activity is sinful or dysfunctional, and some contend that homosexuality is a free choice.[4] ”

The "fixed by adulthood" part, which I don't see much of a problem with, except that it should say "typically fixed by adulthood," can be changed to "typically set by adulthood," "generally unchangeable" (just that without the "by adulthood" part) or "generally stable." Something like that. Scientiom's other minor suggestions for changing Scheinwerfermann's proposal are easy enough to implement. We also have agreement that what religious secs think of homosexuality should be mentioned in the lead. I'll note right now that going by WP:LEAD, it should be. That's another reason I was for ex-gay groups being mentioned in the lead. People trying to "reform" gay and lesbian individuals has been a big part of homosexuality for many years now and has a section dedicated to it in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with part of your response - sexual orientation is a fixed trait, most likely an innate one, not just one "fixed by adulthood" or "generally stable", it is an unchangeable trait - the section which has some suggestions contrary to that is not supported by studies which have been peer reviewed and approved by any globally significant mental health organization. Additionally, an increasing number of studies are showing that sexual orientation is biologically determined. The changes I made reflect the general understanding increasingly of the medical and mental health professions. Lastly, I do not feel that any unprofessional opinions unrelated to the medical aspects of the topic are warranted in the lead - perhaps in the body, but not in the lead - in what is primarily a mental health topic --Scientiom (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientiom, I am not disputing that sexual orientation is a fixed trait. I am disputing simply calling it a biological trait, and that it is a fixed trait for everyone. I am not only doing so because of my personal opinion that it is not as simple as "You were born heterosexual or homosexual, etc." (which I know has no bearing on this discussion), but because researchers are not in agreement that "it is biologically determined and that is it." As though they believe biology is the only cause/explanation for sexual orientation. They are not even in agreement that sexual orientation is always partly biologically-determined. But do they generally believe that sexual orientation is due to a combination of things? Yes. The Sexual orientation and Biology and sexual orientation articles, as well as this one, state the same thing about that. And I have studied the topic extensively enough to know this information without referring to those sections. "Fixed by adulthood" is generally researchers' way of saying that sexual orientation is not likely to be changed past that point. Really, a lot of them believe that sexual orientation develops in early childhood and/or adolescence and is not likely to be changed after that. But as I pointed out by directing you and others to the Fluidity of sexuality section, even that -- no change -- is not the case for everyone. The American Psychiatric Association has stated "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime." Additionally, a report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states: "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time." These are not just "suggestions"; these are statements of certainty/authority. The American Psychological Association touches on the "early childhood/adolescence" factor, when they say, "According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence." And, finally, their take on what causes sexual orientation is the following:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientist to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

I'm certain that if studies definitively showed that sexual orientation was biologically-based/only biologically-based and can never be changed, then these sources would not be reporting otherwise. The lead of the Biology and sexual orientation article would not say "No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment." So, really, to attribute sexual orientation to biology and/or only to biology is a suggestion thus far. I can list a variety of sources where researchers say something along the lines of "We don't definitively know what causes sexual orientation, but we believe biology plays a part" and/or "research suggests that it does." The key word is "part." The wording you implemented makes it sound as though sexual orientation is only determined by biology. It also sounds like a checklist of someone refuting every argument made against homosexuality. Hence, my belief that it sounds like it has something to prove. Now you can continue to assert that "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biologically-determined" and "cannot truly be changed," but that is not what the authoritative sources on sexual orientation have to say about this, except for when saying that sexual orientation is fixed for most people and that sexual orientation change efforts, in their opinion, do not work.

As for the other part, religious beliefs about homosexuality belong in the lead. Homosexuality is not simply a medical topic. Nor is it "primarily a mental health topic," and many gays and lesbians would take offense to it being categorized as such; some hate the words "homosexual/homosexuality" because they feel they are "excessively clinical," given homosexuality's status in the past, as noted by the Gay article. Homosexuality is also a cultural topic, and most others above agreed that religious beliefs belong in the lead (while disputing specific mention of NARTH being there). There is no valid reason to exclude religious beliefs from the lead, since they have always been a big part of the discussion of homosexuality. WP:LEAD is clear about what should go in the lead -- things that adequately summarize a topic. Including religious beliefs does that. I feel the same about mentioning efforts to change a gay or lesbian sexual orientation, which I personally feel is garbage talk, but that is more so up for debate.

In summary, I cannot agree with the version you implemented, no matter if we were to debate this for months. So instead of debating it, why not go for Scheinwerfermann's second proposal? You only had minor issues with it. So why not just tweak them in a way that we can both agree on? Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the debated piece to this:[4]

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. Although some religious sects and "ex-gay" organizations hold the view that homosexual activity is a sinful or dysfunctional behavior, researchers contend that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a normal variation of human sexual orientation. Though not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. ”

It's accurate, adequate and non-preachy. I'm not sure why we were saying that sexual orientation is not a mental disorder. No one says that it is, except those claiming such about homosexuality. Then again, the same can be said of "choice." But at least the belief about "choice" has been applied to bisexuality and asexuality, and a minority of people have even said the same about heterosexuality. Anyway, the current version gets across the point that sexual orientation is not a choice and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder just fine. I wonder if the " like heterosexuality" part should be "like heterosexuality and bisexuality" for anyone who may conclude that we're saying bisexuality isn't just as normal. But then where would that leave asexuality, which the sources don't even mention? Hopefully, people don't read too much into the line and see it for the example that it is. Though leaving out "like heterosexuality" occurred to me, the sentence is much stronger and flows better with that in it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is an improvement over the existing lead, especially considering that consensus here is to remove mention of "ex-gay" organizations from the lead as it is too fringe. Also using words like "contend" is a a bit odd, perhaps change that to "research indicates". I agree with you that we don't need to say "is not a mental disorder", perhaps it should be changed to a quote from the APA on the topic, if I remember right, stating that it is "a normal and positive variant of human sexuality" --Scientiom (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is not an improvement. It's concise, true to the sources and non-preachy. And the version you reverted to also has the wording "ex-gay" organizations in it.[5] But I'll work with you on something we can both agree on. It sounds like we're almost there. From what I read, consensus actually was/is not for removing "ex-gay" organizations from the lead. It was/is for removing specific mention of NARTH from the lead. And any in case, all you had to do was remove the "ex-gay" organizations part. However, I can agree to leave that bit out, even though I feel that it should be in the lead...per WP:LEAD. There's nothing wrong with the word "contend." How is it odd? It's saying that researchers firmly believe this. Saying "Research indicates that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a normal variation of human sexual orientation." makes it sound as though there is doubt that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation. That's what words like "suggests" and "indicates" do. Researchers use those words when reporting what determines sexual orientation, for example, because they aren't exactly sure. They just know that they believe both biology and environment have something to do with it. Anyway, maybe you'd be okay with substituting a word for "contend." How about this:

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, researchers state that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. Though not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. ”

I left out the ex-gay part. But religion should stay, per what I stated above; it also leads in nicely to what scientists/most mental health professionals say in contrast to those beliefs. And of course you see how I changed "contend" to "state," and used the quote you attribute to the APA instead of "a normal variation of human sexual orientation" (although that wording also worked, but I digress). I don't know if you mean the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association, and I don't know where that exact quote is, but it works just as well. It's sourced either way, since the sources do say that homosexuality is normal and healthy. My wording was just a bit different. Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, instead of "researchers state" how about "research and studies show"? That's more accurate. --Scientiom (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. In fact, I prefer it and had thought about using something similar. Either is accurate, but I understand your point about "research and studies show" being more accurate...since these statements are based on research and not just opinion.

So do we have our new text now? Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

One final wording change proposal for clarity (and adding Scientiom's proposed change into this as well):

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, research and studies show that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. ”

That prevents any possibly ambiguity as to whether the "Though..." sentence is referring to "prejudice and discrimination" in both parts of it by clarifying that the "Though..." section refers to homosexuality, while the ending is referring to prejudice and discrimination. More wordy, but less chance of misinterpretation. Thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, RobertMfromLI. I didn't even think of ambiguity, because it seems so natural to me that people would know we're still talking about homosexuality. I mean, how is prejudice and discrimination not in itself a source of negative psychological effects? Unless we're talking about the people committing prejudice and discrimination instead of the ones receiving it. But, hmm, even the perpetrators could be considered "a source of negative psychological effects," since they are the ones causing it and may be having psychological problems themselves.

Anyway, people have been known to misinterpret even the simplest of sentences or sentences that are believed to be clear/simple, so I don't mind your slight alteration. It's no biggie. One more thing, though, the "has" in the last sentence should be "have." Obviously, I didn't catch that before. Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a few more suggestions and then I believe we can implement these changes: Firstly, perhaps "but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment" should be removed as understanding on what determines sexual orientation is rapidly shifting with an increasing amount of studies pointing to an exclusively biological cause - so it may be best to simply leave that out for the time being. Secondly, perhaps "Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior" should be shortened to simply "Although some religous sects view homosexual activity negatively". Lastly, is "like heterosexuality" really necessary here? We're ignoring bisexuality and asexuality then, and perhaps adding to the incorrect belief that there are only two sexual orientations by only comparing one with one other. Thoughts on my suggestions? --Scientiom (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My random spewings:

• On point #1 ("but rather..."), if suitable sources are available, perhaps someone could rework it?
• On point #2 ("Although..."), while there are people against using such terms, that is the exact way the ref characterizes it, so I'm not sure if a change in wording not supported in the source is a viable option.
• On point #3 ("like heterosexuality..."), I think this too requires looking at the source to see what's supportable.

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientiom, I prefer the wording prior to your suggestions, and I really don't see a need to keep picking at the proposal. I've gone over why the wording "but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment" should be included instead of simply saying "it is biological." Not only have I not seen these studies "pointing to an exclusively biological cause" for sexual orientation, all of the studies I have seen point to both biology and environment or biology being part of the cause (PART). Never have I seen any reliable/authoritative sources saying that sexual orientation is only biological, especially given the people whose sexual orientation (not just sexual identity) changes over time or later in life (no matter how few those people are). This is backed by the reliable/authoritative sources in the article, one that is both reliable and authoritative that is used in the proposal. So I am not seeing a problem there. It seems you now want to keep any mention of what causes sexual orientation out of the lead, but if we are going to say that sexual orientation is not a choice, then we should mention what researchers believe to be the cause(s). And research thus far suggests "biology and environment" are the causes. If there is ever a day where it says "only biology," and it is clear that most researchers believe that (enough for whichever APA to also make that claim), though I doubt that will happen, then we can alter the lead to that. I also object to your second most recent proposal. The lead should be WP:Neutral. "Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior" is a neutral description of what religious sects believe it to be, unless one were to say the word "Although" is not neutral since it is leading into opposition. But oh well. The line also better summarizes the beliefs of these religious sects. Just saying "Although some religious sects view homosexual activity negatively" does not tell us what they find negative about it, and so to then report that "research and studies show that homosexuality... ...is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality" seems irrelevant. Why report the latter if the former is not clear what the latter is responding to?

As for "like heterosexuality," see what I stated above. I said: "I wonder if the "like heterosexuality" part should be "like heterosexuality and bisexuality" for anyone who may conclude that we're saying bisexuality isn't just as normal. But then where would that leave asexuality, which the sources don't even mention? Hopefully, people don't read too much into the line and see it for the example that it is. Though leaving out "like heterosexuality" occurred to me, the sentence is much stronger and flows better with that in it." I stand by that. To me, it makes the sentence stronger, showing that researchers view homosexuality in the same way they view opposite-sex relationships when it comes to weighing a normal sexual direction. The line feels empty to me without it. And, yes, Robert, that is backed up by the source. Not the exact wording, but saying that homosexuality has been deemed as normal as the other sexual orientations is. Further, as we know, bisexuality is a combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality. I doubt that people will think we're saying that heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal, but bisexuality is not. Unless some people think we're saying a person should only be sexuality attracted to one sex. Not two. But these misinterpretations that we are worried about are few and far between, I believe. Should we really be this worried about misinterpretations? A lot of written things have the possibility of being misinterpreted. And asexuality? Well, most researchers aren't clear on whether they consider it to be a normal sexual orientation or not. But all that said, if "like heterosexuality" bothers you guys, I can agree to remove that. I had thought about just wording it as "like other sexual orientations," but some people define sexual orientation differently. Just see Talk:Sexual orientation, and how a few people (or rather the same person with different screen names) have tried to get zoosexuality listed as a sexual orientation. I don't want people thinking we're including every type of sexuality.

Robert, what issue do you have with "but rather..."? Or are you talking about the whole line? As said above, it flows fine to me. More than fine, and is backed up by the sources. The way you went over the points, it seemed that you were only addressing the words.

Just to sum up, I can agree to leave out "like heterosexuality." But I don't agree with leaving out what most scientists/mental health professionals believe to be the causes of sexual orientation...if we are going to mention that sexual orientation is not a choice; and we should mention something about that or that a homosexual orientation is not a choice, since so many people believe that it is. Is homosexual behavior a choice? Yes. A homosexual (sexual) orientation is not. Nor can I agree to leave out why these religious sects find homosexuality to be negative. Like I said above, just saying "they view it negatively" tells us nothing, and doesn't flow well with reporting the opposition to it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm willing to give way on #2 and #3, but I'm still concerned about #1 - it is unclear what we mean when we say "environment" - and it may seem like it's giving credibility to discredited junk science theories which assert that sexual abuse causes a homosexual (sexual) orientation, for example. Perhaps we should simply say "and is naturally determined" instead? It's shorter, gets to the point, and covers biology and environment in the sense we're trying to convey. --Scientiom (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22. Re: "but rather..."

My comment was in regards to Scientom's comment: "..."but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment" should be removed as understanding on what determines sexual orientation is rapidly shifting with an increasing amount of studies pointing to an exclusively biological cause..." (italics to show that was the "but rather" I was indicating).

I've got no problem with the current wording, as it's supported by the sources. Scientom brings up a good point though that such perspectives are changing (which is what I was responding to), and I was trying to say I've also got no problems with the line being changed to reflect that, as long as we had reliable sources to indicate such. Inotherwords: happy either way, as long as if we pick Scientom's proposal, we've got the sources to back it (which from the efforts so far, I probably didn't need to say). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm for removing the "like heterosexuality" - it's implied without it - at least in this day and age. It also leaves an implication that bisexuality fits someplace in that sentence. That makes the changes we are all discussing look like this:

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment. Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. ”

If people think removing "like heterosexuality" in any way changes the meaning in a way not supported by the sources, the I suspect we've got more work to do. Otherwise, I'm up for this proposal and second it. Thoughts? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry, Scientom's comments on "but rather... biology and environment" are still under discussion I think. I believe it is probably supportable that many researchers are leaning more towards biology and genetics - but with environment playing some possible role (which I think is in line with what Scientom is trying to point out). But we need cites. I'm looking and will check back here to see if anyone beats me to finding some. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientom, the wording "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biology and environment." is more accurate, more descriptive and sounds a lot better than "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but is naturally determined." What does "naturally-determined" mean? It could mean biological or environmental, considering that researchers consider the role that environment plays in sexual orientation to be just as natural. So why not just list "biology and environment," like the sources say? I don't see this "giving credibility to discredited junk science theories which assert that sexual abuse causes a homosexual (sexual) orientation." And even if someone were to interpret it that way, that has not stopped scientists from saying "biology and environment"/"nature and nurture." Again, this what I mean about being too worried about misinterpretation. If someone misinterprets this, neglecting to read up on what we are saying, that is not our problem. We are not reporting anything different than what researchers say every time they use these words, than what the Sexual orientation article or the Biology and sexual orientation article say. I understand about wanting to be especially careful with this article, since there is so much misinformation out there about homosexuality, but I feel that we are being needlessly picky now. If a reader does not take the time to see what we mean by what we have summarized in the lead, that is their problem. We should not be bending over backwards to make sure absolutely nothing is misinterpreted. Because someone somewhere out there is going to see things how they want to see them anyway.

Robert, as for looking for cites that say researchers are leaning more toward a biological cause for sexual orientation, I believe they are looking more into biological causes, yes. But that doesn't mean they are giving environmental causes little attention. And like I said, thus far...they have concluded that both biology and environment play a role. And, really, we should go by authoritative sources when it comes to defining sexual orientation. Not what one or two single studies suggest. We should report what is scientific consensus on the matter. And given what I stated above about people's sexual orientation changing over time or later in life, I doubt that scientific consensus will ever reach the conclusion that sexual orientation is only biological. Sexual orientation being a combination of biology and environment has been reported as early as 1995, and before that of course. See this 1995 article, which states: Research into the biological basis of sexual orientation "presents a clear double message. Yes, genetics plays a part. No, it is not all genetics," Dora B. Goldstein, professor emeritus of molecular pharmacology, told the audience that attended the first in a series of public lectures sponsored by the Medical Center's Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual Community on March 9. "This shouldn't be too surprising because that is what all kinds of behavioral studies indicate. Genes determine everything. The environment affects everything. Then there is this big area where the two interact," she added.

That is pretty much what researchers have continued to say since 1995. The more recent sources beside the "complex interplay of biology and environment" line show that. I would have gone for a "nature and nurture" wording, but I don't like the implication of "nurture." Too many people view "nurture" as "having been raised that way." And we certainly don't need anyone thinking that people were made gay because that's how they were raised. That is a misinterpretation to be concerned about, and is another reason why I prefer "biology and environment." Sure, while some can take "environment" to mean "this person is gay because of where he or she lived" or something similar to that, that is not exactly accurate with regard to how researchers use the term when determining sexual orientation, and the addition of "complex interplay of biology and environment" takes care of what we mean -- that summing up what causes sexual orientation is not so simple and often involves a mix of the two.

At least it's clear that we are all okay with leaving out "like heterosexuality." Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed to leaving out "like heterosexuality", but I still feel it may be better for the first phrase in question to be shortened to "and is naturally determined" or perhaps "and is a naturally determined trait", as it does entirely cover what we're trying to say. --Scientiom (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22: As I said, happy either way, presuming cites support it. So, the "genetic/environment" issue is one we can always revisit if new studies require such.

Scientom: I think shortening the wording seems nice - but I do not think it accurately portrays the source by creating too much ambiguity. In actuality it may misrepresent the source by not being definitive of what the sources consider the naturally determining factors. "complex interplay..." seems to more properly suit the sources, even though I agree (as Flyer22 pointed out) that it leaves room for misinterpretation. Sadly, I suspect we have to leave that room, because defining what the sources meant becomes synthesis on our part, even if we are correct (ie: we can't do that unless we can find a cite that actually does such a definition). Alas, sometimes properly defining something in an article in the way we know (or think) the sources meant it isn't always possible because it's not what the sources said. I think, sans other sources to use, we've gotta leave that one the way it is. :-( Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Before I respond to Scientom's latest reply, I want to mention that another reason I doubt scientific consensus will ever be "Sexual orientation is all biological" is due to the twin studies. Twin studies, researching "identical" twins, have shown that even with people who share pretty much the same exact biology, one twin may turn out to be heterosexual...while the other may not. So researchers often ponder the following: If sexual orientation is all biological, then why wouldn't both twins be heterosexual? This is of course discussed in the Sexual orientation article, as well as the Biology and sexual orientation article.

Moving on: Scientom, I gotta say, I can't budge on the "complex interplay of biology and environment" wording, per what I and Robert stated above. The suggestion of "and is naturally determined" or "and is a naturally determined trait" is just too ambiguous and leaves more room for misinterpretation. I have no doubt that some people will take "naturally-determined" to only mean "biological," for example. Instead of taking that risk -- of having people misinterpret what we mean by "naturally-determined" -- it's best to just state what we mean. And what we mean is "biological and environmental." And when we include the words "complex interplay," it helps significantly because it shows that what determines sexual orientation isn't as simple as "Oh, it's biological and/or environmental." Because, really, it's actually often a complicated interaction between the two, most researchers believe. That is the best summary we can give of what scientists/researchers believe to be the causes of sexual orientation. And "environment" includes what researchers believe to be the role of hormones during embryonic/fetal development; a lot of them have concluded that this also has something to do with what determines one's sexual orientation. Yes, someone may misinterpret the word "environment," but the lead is for summarizing. It is the reader's job to then explore what we mean by the lead, by reading through the aforementioned parts of the article. Like I said, "If a reader does not take the time to see what we mean by what we have summarized in the lead, that is their problem. We should not be bending over backwards to make sure absolutely nothing is misinterpreted. Because someone somewhere out there is going to see things how they want to see them anyway." Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Religion POV in intro (RFC): Continued

Question: Are we inferring (or using) the term "biology" to include genetics? And by "we", I mean the sources we've taken those terms from? If not (ie: the sources aren't discussing genetics and research in that area - instead limiting to more simple biology), then perhaps that's the area where recent research (and changes to this section) can come into play? If not, then for lack of being able to think up anything that better portrays it, I'm all for "complex... biological and environmental..." as the wording. Otherwise (if supported by current cites or new ones), I'd propose "complex... biological, genetic and evironmental..." as new wording. Thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, Robert, it's a little late for a section break. But, yes, the sources are including "genetics" in what they mean by "biology." They even use the word "genetics" as well. And in any regard, genetics include biology, and biology encompasses genetics. In what instance are you thinking this is not the case? In the example I mentioned above -- about hormones during embryonic/fetal development being considered to partly (or sometimes) determine sexual orientation? If so, that is covered by "environment." But I wouldn't describe hormonal influences during embryonic/fetal development as "genetic" anyway. I'd simply call it "hormonal," like the sources do. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, lack of coffee clarity. What I was trying to say, for lack of ambiguity for those who (unlike us) understand biology encompasses genetics, was that if the article citation uses both terms, then for clarity, perhaps we can as well. I'm not strongly for such. I'm split. I don't like redundancy... but I also don't like (on more complex subjects) not being specific where needed so the average reader understands what's being written. I've met a lot of people who think biology and genetics are unrelated fields. Sans lessons on such, I simply figured including both terms (if supportable by the cites - instead of the cite only mentioning biology) would solve that "issue" (or "non-issue"). Or maybe I just need another cup of joe... Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As a person with average scientific knowledge I would clarify by using both. Good luck with the coffe situation.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

LoL, thanks! I'm on my way out for a 7-11 break in a few minutes. ;-) Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we are here - this is with "genetics" added, which is most definitely still awaiting feedback from more of you (ie: I've inserted it, but it's not yet a given and discussion is still ongoing):

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of genetics, biology and environment. Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. ”

Thoughts on how we are doing? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Using both works. I like it, its gotta good beat. I can dance to it. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not hard-pressed against it either, Robert, although I do find using both "biology" and "genetics" to be redundant. It's like we're implying that we mean two different things, and I cannot fathom what two different things we mean in this case. If we had to choose one of the two, however, I'd go with "biology," because the sexual orientation debate usually asks "Is sexual orientation biological" as opposed to "Does sexual orientation involve genetics?" And because we have an article titled Biology and sexual orientation, not Genetics and sexual orientation, although, yes, of course the former is also about the latter. And the sources are using the words interchangeably, from what I have observed, not as two different things.

Anyway, let's go ahead and implement this new wording. We've debated an alternate text for that part of the lead long enough. I feel the need to mention that the "Homosexuality is one of the three main categories..." line should stay, as that leads into introducing the other sexual orientations. What we've been focused on is the text following that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

One more thing about the proposal: We could also simply use the wording taken from the Biology and sexual orientation article -- "a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." Yes, "hormonal" is somewhat redundant to "environmental," since researchers consider hormonal factors to be a part of "environmental influences," but I figured it was worth a thought. Not many people think "hormones" when they think "environmental," after all, making it less redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well? Three of us have stated that we are okay with the proposal. Should I go ahead and implement one of these consensus versions? Or should we be clear on which wording we like the best for the biology part first? We have "a complex interplay of biology and environment," "a complex interplay of genetics, biology and environment"...and "a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" (or "complex interplay" if we substitute it for "combination"). Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Oooh! Oooh! Can I? I keep being told I need more mainspace edits... it's hard to point to talk pages to show I actually contribute to content creation and/or changes. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL, of course I don't mind. Which wording are you going to choose? I'd prefer the first or the last one, per what I stated about the redundancy of including "genetics" and "biology," but I'm okay with leaving it up to you. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this one?

“ Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of genetics, biology and environment. Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behavior, research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality. Though homosexuality is not in itself a source of negative psychological effects, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people has been shown to cause psychological harm. ”

I agree on what you say about adding "genetics..." - except for the layman who may not realize the overlap... I can either remove it (and we can consider adding it back later), or I can leave it in (and we can consider removing it later). Suggestions? -Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I stand by leaving out "genetics." And, really, linking "biology," which of course details genetics, should be sufficient. It's not our fault if someone somehow doesn't understand that biology encompasses genetics and/or doesn't click on the link. But like I said, I'm okay with leaving that decision up to you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Done

• Inserted new text.
• Removed "genetics" as redundant (as a separate edit, so it can easily be undone if warranted
• Left in "Homosexuality is one of the three main categories[...]" sentence until discussion on that point finalizes

Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this link for environment, added by Scientiom, is "more appropriate." In addition to hormones in the womb affecting the fetus, researchers also mean "social interaction" with regard to the environment affecting sexual orientation. Environment (biophysical) is more about natural environment and built environment. I understand that Scientiom is worried about people thinking that someone is "made gay" by say, child sexual abuse, but researchers do believe that human interaction over the years can help form one's sexual orientation. Above, I already went over how they contend that sexual orientation is often formed in early childhood and/or adolescence and that sexual orientation can form and/or change across a person's lifetime. And, of course, I am not including "child sexual abuse" into that equation. It doesn't seem that we can accurately link any article to represent what we mean by "environment." Linking to Social environment doesn't cover "hormones during embryonic/fetal development," and linking Environment (biophysical) doesn't cover "social interaction" (at least not clearly). And I certainly don't believe that we should link both. Therefore, I feel that we should leave "environment" unlinked and let readers refer to the sources, article and related articles for what we mean by "environment."

On a side note: Even though I and some researchers don't use it this way with regard to sexual orientation, "hormones" could be considered covered by "biology" -- as in the woman's biology affecting the fetus. Which means we could just let "environment" refer to social interaction instead. But, yeah, I prefer leaving it unlinked. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I might have been the one to originally link that word. I've got no problems with the link being removed. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I gather you mean either link? I removed the link Scientiom added in place of yours.

If there is a strong need to stress what we mean by "environment," we could add "both hormonal and social influences" in parentheses right after the "biology and environment" part. But that could be a bad move, since some people may take "hormonal" to mean "puberty" instead of "embryonic/fetal development," and "social influences" without detail can imply just what Scientiom fears "environment" can imply. While "environment" without detail can imply the same thing to people, it's better and more accurate in wording than "social influences," and it is what the sources say. So, again, I prefer to leave "environment" unlinked and let the readers refer to the sources, article and related articles for what we mean by the word. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Documenting update here for when this discussion is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Motion for "Criticism of Homosexual Relationships" Section

As far as I can tell none of this article addresses opposition to homosexuality aside from the "politics" and "religion" sections in very brief mention. I do not think there is enough criticism of the behavior to warrant an entire page, like the "opposition to the legalization of abortion" and anti-same-sex marriage pages. However, a more significant blurb should probably be outlined, presumably summarizing argumentation done by contemporary writers (I'd be willing to contribute some of that, in the form of some work from Finnis and Beckwith, should this edit be approved of). 198.151.130.143 (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz

Hi DDiaz, I'd suspect a little further clarity on what you are suggesting may be helpful so the community can weigh in on it. Personally, I'm not sure what more can be put in. Each "mini section" has a link to a full article. Remember, this article isn't about those topics as a whole. It simply touches upon them and points the reader to the full article on that subset topic. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

So, what I'm thinking of here are the ethical arguments against homosexuality raised by Christians, Muslims, secular homophobes, the KKK, etc. Right now it seems like the article just has a sprinkled pastiche of these views here and there, as if they are not a major cultural or intellectual phenomenon. The articles on Gay Marriage, Abortion, Adultery, etc do not run in the same ilk. We might say this is due to the legal factors surrounding those issues, but there are individual articles strictly devoted to ethical opinions on each of these things, whereas we don't see this for the actual homosexuality stuff. I'm not thinking a full fledged article like conservapedia would have would be a good idea, because I don't think there is a sufficient amount of content or facts to put in it. However a stub would be useful, which we could link to in this article. Some resources which contain arguments against homosexuality from an ethical standpoint include Finnis' "The Good of Marriage and the Morality of Sexual Relations", Robert George's "Public Reason and Political Conflict: Abortion and Homosexual Acts" and Bradshaw's Reply to Corvino's essay "Why Shouldn't Tommy and Jimmy Have Sex?", both of which are published in the volume "Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality". 198.151.130.137 (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz

I'm not seeing sections "opposition to" Darwinism or Heterosexuality. Even if some people believe the sun goes round the earth, would that warrant a mention in Heliocentrism? Homosexuality is an article about that phenomenon, not whether people believe it exists, of who disagree with it existing. - MishMich - Talk - 02:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

For a great example of how much criticism of the subject should be in an article, even one on something or someone frequently condemned by some in society, see Noam Chomsky. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky? Secs. "Heterosexism and homophobia" and "Violence against gay and lesbian people" are arguments in contra quite sufficient, without adding paragraphs of homophobic nonsense just to show "the other side" of the story. Shame for even suggesting such a thing, IP - and actually citing the KKK as an example of a fair-minded oppositional view! Djathinkimacowboy 08:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

European Union

The "[citation needed]" added to the Legality section on 9.1.1.2 European Union should be replaced with a proper reference to article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. If would do it myself if the page wasn't lockeed. G913 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Colors need to be changed, said the interior decorator

The map's colors are wrong. Light colors usually indicate freedom, while darker colors indicate lack or loss of same. I would suggest for the map a range of colors starting with White for the most liberated countries, i.e. those that have legalised gay marriage, and going to Black for the most anti-gay ones, i.e. those who punish homosexuality with death. -The Gnome (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

" Although some religious sects hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful or dysfunctional behaviour,[4] research and studies show that homosexuality is a normal and positive variant of human sexuality." Studies are not capable of identifying what is moral or "positive" such a thing as this is not possible and as it is worded here it seems to say that research has found homosexuality unsinful which would be even less possible as a divine diety defines what is sinful and cannot be determined by any natural means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.225 (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I've replaced "sinful" with "unnatural". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've edited it a bit further. That wording's bothered me for a while. Homosexuality is no more "positive" (or negative) than heterosexuality. garik (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the new changes (and I do feel that replacing "sinful" was a good choice due to what is stated above, how it flowed with the rest of the sentence), but I want to point out to the IP that studies identify what is positive all the time. What has positive and negative effects, what is viewed as positive, that type of thing. This is why we mention in the lead that prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people have been shown to cause psychological harm. As for "moral," yes, you have a point there. But, again, studies would be going on what people consider to be moral. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Position of "History" section

Every article and every subject has its own peculiarities, and therefore it is not wise to fix rules applicable to all. Nevertheless it seems to me a normal order to have the "history" section at the beginning, as it supplies an introductory information about what has been the "evolution" of the subject till now. In the present instance, I think that it would be useful to have it in this position. I may be wrong, though, in which case would appreciate to hear the diverging opinions.--Auró (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Is homosexuality a paraphilia?

A new article on this topic has just been published (in Archives of Sexual Behavior), summarizing many of the correlates of the homosexuality and the paraphilias. Should anyone decide any of its contents should be integrated into the mainpage, it was published open access, so it can be downloaded and circulated freely: http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9900-3 . The article contains a very substantial reference list to the primary literature.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't the right place to promote or publish articles you have written, no matter how relevant they might be to the topic. Someone963852 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I respect your opinion and desire to protect WP. I very carefully checked WP:COI before typing anything (and perhaps this conversation might be better had at WP:COI/N), and not only am indeed allowed to add that link/article to the talkpage, I am even allowed to add it to the mainpage.

From WP:COS: "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies" (which it very obviously does). In other words, not only have I merely obeyed the relevant guidelines, I have restricted myself even more than I had to, by sticking to the talkpage instead. (Moreover, I also out myself on my userpage, which I also do despite COI saying very specifically that it is not required.) So, I think I have earned a little more AGF than this.

That said--and repeating that I am enitrely permitted to cite my article on the mainpage myself if I so desired--how about we instead discuss how and whether the mainpage could be improved given a new RS on the topic. If nothing else, my article has an extensive reference list that will lead you to many primary sources, should you prefer them.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)