Talk:Homosexuality

Heavy and unhealthy Western bias in the article

This article is heavily biased in terms of modern western social concepts and issues, but presents itself as though these issues/concepts were universally applicable -- leading to severe misrepresentation of facts. This problem is especially glaring in the introduction section, where it dwells upon several western issues as though they were universal. In this, the article exhibits a strong westernised LGBT POV on the topic of sexual/romantic intimacy between men, without mentioning the term "western" even once in the introduction.

Here are a list of some such issues:

1. The introduction takes no notice of the fact that the concept of a separate group of people exhibiting sexuality for same-gender, as well as, of sexual feelings for same-sex being essentially different from sexual feelings for 'different-sex,' is both of recent and western origin.

2. This article assumes that gender and sexual orientation/ identities are universally defined in the same manner, across the world and history, as it is through the western concept of 'sexual orientation'. That you can talk of a separate 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual' orientation or individual in any society or point of time in history, just like you do in modern west. Examples of discrepancies are:

(a) How would you define sexual orientation in terms of just two genders (man and woman) in societies that have a strong tradition of 'third gender,' without interfering and damaging the original knowledge, customs and practices? When the western 'gay' identity is imposed upon these societies, it is widely seen as a 'feminine male'/'non-man'/third gender identity fit only for the feminine oriented males.

(b) How and why would you isolate a 'homosexual' orientation/ individual in societies, where either formally or secretively (within men's spaces) sexual attraction between men is seen as a universal male phenomenon -- and hence enjoys that much social respect/ space. What would be the social consequences of such isolation on men and on men's desire for men? Already, enforcing the concept of 'gay' in these societies is forcing men to forgo intimacy between men, because no one wants to be seen as 'third gender' or 'gay.' E.g. men in India are already being forced by certain vested interests not to hold hands (just as the concept of 'homosexuality' has done in the west), as this would make them liable to be called 'gay.'

(c) How would you define 'homo' and 'hetero' in societies where the concepts of what is 'same-sex' and what is 'opposite-sex' is different from the western/Christian world. Eg. in the non-west, 'third gender' males (feminine gendered males) are not seen as 'men.' Any relationship between a man (masculine gendered male that follows the male sexual role of penetrating) and a third gender male (feminine gendered male that follows the third gender sexual role of receiving anal sex) is seen as between two different-genders, not the same-genders. 'Gender identity' and not just 'sex identity' is important in the non-western world.

3. While the introduction does not even cursorily want to mention that 'homosexuality' is a modern, western concept, or that this article is primarily about the western(ized) societies, it nevertheless goes on to dwell upon issues that are not possible in the non-west, right in the introduction, as though, they too are universally applicable.

E.g. whether individuals have any control over sexual attraction for the same-sex, or whether or not it is changeable, is of no consequence in the non-western/ non-Christian societies -- as acceptance of sexual relations between same-gender is not dependant upon whether or not it is spontaneous. People are expected to either stay off these relations in the name of social order/ morality, or to carry them on without acknowledging them. It's acknowledgement that is seen as problematic for the social order, not indulgence as such.

Even whether or not it is natural has of little consequence in the non-western world. I remember once this issue was brought up in a women's organization in India (Jagori), where, when it was pointed out that it is natural (and hence should be acceptable) because it is found in animals too, the overwhelming response was, "We know that already, but, should we become like animals and do what they're doing?" On the other hand, there is acceptability for sex between third gender males and 'men' without it needing to be more natural than sex between men.

If this article is going to be so heavily and unapologetically biased in favour of western LGBT POV, then it should be incumbent upon Wikipedia to mention it, right in the introduction, and change the tone of the article. Right now it looks more like a space for western LGBT activism. (Masculinity (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC))

Does that mean the article about slavery is anti-slavery propaganda? Should we, for a more "balanced" POV, include a section that praises the benefits of slavery?--DVD-junkie | talk | 14:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

<<Does that mean the article about slavery is anti-slavery propaganda?>> If it contains what the west considers 'slavery' -- e.g. if the west pronounces that children helping in their own household chores, is slavery and then go on to define children in India, Africa, etc. as victims of slavery, because they do housechores at home ... then ... to include this in Wikipedia as 'undisputed' definition of slavery, right in the introduction, with the vested interests vehemently censoring any mention of the incongruity between western and non-western viewpoints as well as differences within the west on the issue -- even when pointed out by reliable sources --- then it is certainly mispropaganda.

<<Should we, for a more "balanced" POV, include a section that praises the benefits of slavery?>> If there is ground, (with sources) available to praise the benefit of slavery, then yes, you should. You are not here to judge what is right and what is wrong, but to include what exists, with valid sources, and in a balanced manner, which the LGBT lobby on Wikipedia has failed to do.(Masculinity (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

I notice there's not a single reference to any reliable source in the essay above. --Nigelj (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that sources are required on the talk page.(Masculinity (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

You guys might also want to watch this user at other sexual orientation/activity articles, like Human male sexuality. Banking honesty (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We've gone through all of this several years ago, when I had offered to include the non-western pov with innumerable reliable published sources, but there was such heavy politicking by the LGBT, that I finally left frustrated, only to come back several months later to know that others had taken my work in the face of the strong LGBT lobby, and since, the LGBT won't let touch the article on 'homosexuality' it had been moved to a section called "non-western concepts of male gender and sexuality" an article that was very well supported by sources. Someone later merged it with the article on human male sexuality, and in the recent years the it is again being hijacked by the strong LGBT lobby, simply because of their large numbers.

Banking honesty for example has not even cared to ask for references, and went on to delete stuff that doesn't suit LGBT pov. I added back one statement with sources, which were struck down without even a call for discussion. Such is the conceitedness of the LGBT lobby.

Why isn't someone addressing the issues that I've raised here. What about the non-western pov. Why this cultural aggression?(Masculinity (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

I remember you, Masculinity. I recall that several discussions over half a dozen talk pages took place where you were very strongly pushing for information to be added to articles about how men can be homosexual (especially, if I recall correctly, in India) and still be masculine, or some such. I remember walls of text that were nearly impossible to read that you included to explain your views. I remember discussions with you where it was very difficult for you to explain what it was you were trying to insert. I got the impression that you were having the same difficulties understanding the concepts yourself or expressing them concisely in English.

So, to reiterate, articles are constructed based on the volume of research that exists about the topic. But to make this a more complex issue, this article has NOT been constructed this way. This article is a result of a thousand editors adding a sentence here and there at a time. It has no cohesion and as an article, it is substandard. It needs to be rewritten, which I come by every so often to say. So we have that in common at least.

Homosexuality is a very broad topic and thousands of books and journal articles have been written about it. To construct this article, the best way to go about it would be to do a review of the most authoritative literature about the subject. This means information that treats generalities instead of specifics. Now, the article reads as if hundreds of editors have had a hand in inserting their favorite pet theories and views. This is the kind of stuff this article needs to get rid of. Wikipedia itself is against adding pet theories. If there's an LGBT lobby at Wikipedia, it's impotent. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my English is not so bad at all. The problem as I see it, was that people here were so used to see things in a certain way, that they felt they had no obligation to look at anything else, than what the LGBT theory dictates. I distinctly remember LGBT driven politics. A lot of stuff that I added was supported by well researched papers, and members of LGBT would just come and delete it because theydidn't like it. They were just so huge in numbers, and that is what counts at Wikipedia, especially, if you're new and don't know your way around -- besides, they were such zealots. Then I was taken to some sort of LGBT administrator, and chided off. Ultimately, I gave up. Only to come back months later and see that some editors (apparently not from LGBT), that knew their way through in Wikipedia and could also manuevre around LGBT politics, had not only understood what I was talking about clearly, but they infact, beautifually moulded all that into Wikipedian language (something that I lacked at that time) and made a beautiful article out of it called "non-western concepts of male gender and sexuality." Actually, that information belonged in this article on homosexuality -- but those people too understood the practicality of avoiding the LGBT politics and keep off the article on 'homosexuality' that the LGBT brigate thinks they own. Unfortunately, LGBT activism has finally got to that article as well. I mean its not for nothing that you don't see much on Wikipedia about all the opposition from within the west from scholarly work -- that maintains that 'homosexuality' is just a social construct, not a biological or universal one. Like in the western society, here on Wikpedia too, a strong though unorganised zeal keeps every sane voice that goes against some of the cherished ideals and concepts of the LGBT movement well censored on one pretext or the other.(Masculinity (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

I remember Masculinity too, and have had to revert some of his edits as recently as last year because they were WP:Original research or some other type of WP:Synthesis. And, actually, Moni, Masculinity's objections are more so about there being a such thing as homosexuality. That men being sexually attracted to and/or having sex with men, for example, doesn't make the men homosexual or bisexual. Masculinity objects to all of the way the West views sexual attraction/sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's funny, if you look at the gender and sexuality related articles on Wikipedia, they're flooded with unsubstantiated LGBT propaganda, and no one cares if they're Original research. I did feel the full heat of the LGBT brigade as they expected the stuff that I added to be ad verbatim, as in the published sources, even as they did not feel the same rule to apply to them. I am not at all objecting to removing anything of mine that is unsubstantiated. I am talking about removing stuff that are not only such common knowledge in the outside world, but are also very well substantiated by reliable, publised documents -- sometimes, by such known western experts as Michel Foucalt and others. Even phrases that were taken ad verbatim from published sources were eventually taken off -- on one pretext or the other, and when you're the lone non-western individual facing the sea of LGBT zealots, there is not much you can do.(Masculinity (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)).

This is way off topic, guys. Take it to user space. Proposals for this article should be specific, succinct, and backed up with links to sources. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the LGBT lobby doesn't stop from removing even specific, succinct and backed up with links texts, when they don't agree with the LGBT propaganda. And that is a huge issue.(Masculinity (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC))

I'm aware that people here don't like the changes I want to put in, however, I expect an answer, because I'm seriously considering to take it up. I'll wait for a couple more days for a discussion on this, and then put forward a definite proposal for changes.(Masculinity (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC))

Let's cut to the chase. Masculinity, exactly what changes do you want to make, and what sources do you plan to use? HiLo48 (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Masculinity, if editors here are rejecting proper sources due to a personal bias, then that is indeed an issue, but this is not the proper venue. WP:RSN, WP:RFC or WP:RFC/U would be appropriate, depending on the exact circumstances. With that said, if you go there and can't show you've even attempted proposing sources here first, it'll be a waste of everyone's time. Wikipedia is not the place to wage a war on "the LGBT lobby". I'll reiterate: there is nothing to discuss without a proposal; either make the definite proposal you mentioned, or this conversation can't continue.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Scientific Studies Related to Homosexuality

Wikipedia describes homoseuality as not being a choice. In support of this statement. I thought I would suggest some studies that have been done that suggest that. Scientific research has provided multiple studies, on a large spectrum that provide evidence of homosexuality having a biological or inherited origin. First, there is a noted percentage of homosexuality in twins when one is gay. Arguably, if identical twins share the same DNA, then they both should be gay. Scientist however argue this from the stand point of methylation. Humans inherit two copies of every gene, one from each parent. Methylation "turns off certain sections of genetic code (Abrams)" Methylation can have generational changes and is even influenced by environment.

Second, many studies have argued that there is a higher incidence of left-handedness in homosexuals which also seems to be consistent with the rotation of their hair whorl. There appears to be a higher incidence of having a counter-clockwise hair whorl (vs a clockwise hair whorl) in homosexual man, occurring approximately 30 percent of the time in homosexuals, versus roughly 8% in heterosexuals (France). Furthermore, there have been multiple studies that suggest that the second born son is more likely to be gay than the first born son, the third 33 percent more likely than the second, etcetera (France).

Other studies of the brain via MRI and animal dissection, show a differences in the brain between heterosexual and homosexual people. According to Levay, who studied a section of the hypothalamus known as INAH3, gay men had a similar structure to straight women. Heterosexual men had a structure about twice the size. To continue, in heterosexual people the right and left hemisphere of the brain is symmetrical. In homosexual people the left hemisphere is larger (Owens).

Abrams, Michael. "The Real Story on Gay Genes." Discover Magazine. 5 June 2007. Web. 1 April 2012. France, David. "The Science of Gaydar." New York Magazine. 25 June 2007. Web. 1 April 2012. Owens, James. "Gay Men, Straight Women Have Similar Brains." National Geographic News. 16 June 2008. Web 1 April 2012. 75.70.96.26 (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Katherine 23 April 2012

Homosexuality has become more widespread in today's society, causing people to ponder if this is a result of nature or nurture. Lack of funding has put a halt on research done on a homosexual gene, yet some studies have suggested there may be a gene responsible for the alter in sexual orientation. Homosexual tendencies in animals have been observed in nature for many years, suggesting that there may be natural causes for homosexuality. On the other hand, it is quite possible that nature plays a valuable role in defining someones sexual orientation. Many homosexuals have had a history of sexual abuse as a child. When someone experiences this as a child, he or she may perceive sex with someone of the same sex as being a form of showing loving affection and later this misconception may turn to homosexual desires in adolescent years. Whatever the cause may be, it is highly unlikely that someone would wake up one morning and decide to be a homosexual. It is far more probable that an individuals genetic make-up and life experiences have contributed to the trait of homosexuality. Raqueles (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Raquele Shephard

Refs:Abrams, Michael. "Born Gay?." Discover 28.6: 58-83. Academic Search Premier. Jun 2007. Web. Apr. 2012.

Cohen, Richard. Coming out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality. Winchester: Oakhill Press, 2006. Print

I'm not quite sure what changes you're trying to suggest, but neither of those can be considered credible sources. The points you're bringing up are also easily dismissed by more vetted research 84.208.181.207 (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Asexuality as a main sexual orientation in the lead

Hi, all. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Asexuality as a main sexual orientation about the validity of User:Pass a Method adding that asexuality is "a main category of sexual orientation" to the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. Obviously, comments on the matter are needed. Flyer22 (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Why are the sources used unreliable? Crzyclarks (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll just say why I don't think the sources used are unreliable... I used FRC as a source because they have conveniently placed a couple of nice graphs to campare; they are from good sources. I don't see why The Sexual Organization of the City is unreliable. The 1985 study was only 25 years ago and it concurs with the more recent sources I put. Crzyclarks (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Your addition was pure POV blither supported by totally unreliable sources. There's really nothing to discuss. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the burden is on YOU to convince us that your addition has merit and your sources are not woprthless, and get consensus for your proposed change, not the other way around. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at the sources. I did say why they're reliable. FRC is the source because they've got sources of information from the US Census Bureau and Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census. Comparing the two is the information that is added, not the contentious material in the rest of the article/site. The Sexual Organization of the City uses a scientific approach and received good reviews; this seems like a good example: http://www.glreview.com/issues/11.6/11.6_lo.php For Michael Pollak, I copied the information, thinking that the description of how he came to those conclusions was accurate. I've had a sample look at the book and it shouldn't be included. Unless the statement below is for social scientists to answer questions pertaining only to homosexuality (rather than everybody/thing), then it should be removed. This statement seems unnecessary and untrue/exaggerated: Further, knowledge of the size of the "gay and lesbian population holds promise for helping social scientists understand a wide array of important questions—questions about the general nature of labor market choices, accumulation of human capital, specialization within households, discrimination, and decisions about geographic location."<ref name=black /> Crzyclarks (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss, site of the conservative Christian group Family Research Council is not WP:RS and can't be used as a source in this context. As for the cherry picked “studies” of Michael Pollak and Edward Laumann, you found them here (text supported by footnotes 5 and 7). You haven't even bothered to change the text, instead, you literally copied it (which is a copyright violation). But even if we ignore obvious copyright iviolation, those cherry picked facts can't stay in the article (see WP:NPOV and WP: FRINGE)--В и к и T 09:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, it depends what you mean by source... The actual sources are really the 'US Census Bureau' and 'Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census'. The FRC just conveniently placed them there so I added that page as a source. Not sure how I cherry picked them. In the article right now it says: "Negative stereotypes characterize LGB people as less romantically stable, more promiscuous and more likely to abuse children, but there is no scientific basis to such assertions." Lesbians may be less promiscuous and more romantically stable than straight couples, but gay men, simply due to their gender of being male, will on average have more sexual partners and more short term relationships than straight couples. Monogamy is also less common among gays. I thought this was common knowledge. Obviously there is no reason why gays cannot form stable, committed, and monogamous relationships, but they are less likely to do so. I copied the information from an edit on Wikipedia. It was removed due to it synthesising. As no other reason was given, I (wrongly) assumed that was the only reason and decided to add it here, where it wouldn't be synthesising. I only think Michael Pollak's source shouldn't be added. Crzyclarks (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The proposed use is still synthesizing an argument, since the sources in question don't address gay stereotyping. For an article to set to prove that a stereotype is "correct" is a rather dubious goal, and any reliable sources cited would appropriately be held to a high standard and need to be precisely on point.

I am not aware if any other articles where we describe a stereotype ("group x is lazy/less intelligent/violent/cheap/promiscuous" etc.) and then launch into an attempt to use studies to prove that blanket generalization to be correct. The point of the section as currently written isn't that the stereotype are never true of individuals, but that they are not necessarily or inherently true of individuals. That point is well supported by the available RSs.--Trystan (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't about gay stereotyping. The section isn't even on gay stereotyping. I don't think anybody would say that every single gay is more promiscuous than any heterosexual possible, or at least not enough to even warrant mentioning. The way it currently looks, is that there is no difference in relationship conduct between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The way I had written it, was basically: 'on average, gays are more promiscuous and have shorter relationships. But they are equally able to enter into stable, committed relationships as heterosexuals.' The current wording says "Negative stereotypes characterize LGB people..." It doesn't say 'all' LGB people. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with the new source? Crzyclarks (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Chiefly, that it says nothing about Heterosexism and Homophobia, and so is not appropriate for a section on that topic.--Trystan (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Then why does the section say that there is no scientific evidence that gays/lesbians have different numbers of sexual partners and they are no different to heterosexuals relationship wise? I don't want a response saying because it is a false stereotype, as it isn't. Crzyclarks (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. A stereotype is a "a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment."[1] By that definition, there is no such thing as a true stereotype. What the section says is that the oversimplified, uncritical prejudices people hold about LGB people are not scientifically supported, which is what the sources we have on the subject say. To use other sources to try and synthesize an argument that these oversimplified prejudices are actually correct is inherently not WP:NPOV.--Trystan (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You'd need to say that the stereotype is for all LGB people. Right now it's just for LGB people in general or on average, and that this belief is not scientifically supported, which isn't true. Crzyclarks (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I change it to this: Negative stereotypes characterize all LGB people as less romantically stable, more promiscuous and more likely to abuse children. While there is no scientific basis to child abuse, on average, homosexual couples are more likely to have more sexual partners and stay together for a shorter time than heterosexual couples. In his The Sexual Organization of the City, sociologist Edward Laumann from the University of Chicago wrote that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months". However, gay men and lesbians are able form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects. Crzyclarks (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverting my last edit was a bit harsh. If you think the way I worded the sentence was grouping child abuse with relationships then you could have edited it to change that. Crzyclarks (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody object to wording it as this? Negative stereotypes characterize all LGB people as less romantically stable, more promiscuous and more likely to abuse children. On average, homosexual couples are more likely to have more sexual partners and stay together for a shorter time than heterosexual couples. In his The Sexual Organization of the City, sociologist Edward Laumann from the University of Chicago wrote that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months". However this does not encompass all LGB people. Gay men and lesbians are able form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects. Sexual orientation does not affect the likelihood that people will abuse children. Claims that there is scientific evidence to support an association between being gay and being a pedophile are based on misuses of those terms and misrepresentation of the actual evidence. Crzyclarks (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That version does not address the fundamental WP:OR problem of using sources that don't address Heterosexism and Homophobia to advance a new argument on that topic.--Trystan (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the information is addressing the stereotype that is mentioned in the section. Right now it looks like LGB people are exactly like straight people when it comes to sexual partners and length of relationships, which isn't true. What I want to change it to is that the stereotype of ALL gay people having more sexual partners and shorter relationships is not true, but they will on average have more partners and shorter relationships. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Statistics in Lede

I'll just add that I did 4 reverts now, in less than 24 hours. Felt it was necessary as opposed to waiting several days for a response on the talk page, as the sources clearly state the numbers and those numbers are very important when viewing this article. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

By "stable version" I mean text that has stood for years, before someone unilaterally changed it 8 days ago.

• May 2011
• May 2010
• July 2009

Crzyclarks, I will not report you for edit warring, but if you keep doing that, probably, sooner or later you will be blocked. I strongly advise you to edit another topic, because you are clearly here to enter UNDUE right wing POV in the article.--В и к и T 19:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Those numbers aren't made up. The sources differentiate between homosexual and same-sex contact. There's no point in combining them. I would like some justification as to why. I'm more of a lefty. Liberal Democrats - UK, Labor party - Australia, Democrats - US. (From Australia, currently living in UK and I thought I may as well add the US one). Crzyclarks (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll just add that I'm opposed to bias more than anything. If this article had an anti-gay bias, I would be a lot more relentless in editing than now. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If 3 studies were over 3%, then put 'between 1 and ..... %'. Unless they were anomalous when compared to the majority of studies. Still no justification for combining the two separate results. Reply soon please. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

See ref 10 (Bogaert), which summarizes different studies. See also ref 17, and ref 14 (link).--В и к и T 20:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that sort of proves my point. The 22-32 year ago 10% is wrong and the recent 6% looks like an anomaly when compared to the recent studies. The 13% is the highest I've ever seen of same-sex contact and the website doesn't tell us how many people they polled, which gives it even less credibility. The AIDS Risk source does say something different. Nothing to do with what we're discussing if you included it because of the, perhaps high level of "some homosexual attraction" reported. That is entirely different to being homosexual, or had same-sex contact. You still haven't said why we should combine the two separate results. Things that make differentiating between homosexuals and people who have experienced same-sex contact important is that they are very different to each other. A heroine addict who makes money by prostituting himself to feed the habit isn't usually homosexual. Porn starts (especially female) who engage in same-sex contact for money may not consider themselves homosexual. There are many more examples, such as experimentation, being on so much drugs that you're looney, even being raped is same-sex contact. Sorry to get all heavy lol. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Pornstars do not represent a significant number of population, so your point is meaningless. Аlso, I think researchers are intelligent enough not to interview pornstars. But, I admit that it is very hard to summarize results of different studies, especially in one sentence. As a compromise, we can leave out percentages from the lead, and write that different studies reached different conclusions, and explain methodological difficulties.--В и к и T 10:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

My point isn't meaningless. Porn stars is only one of the examples I used, so disregarding everything else is stupid. Also, for the studies to be reliable, they have to be random, they can't pick and choose who they will accept. You haven't addressed the other things I said either. You still haven't said why we should synthesise two very different results from scientific studies. Your responses have never addressed this and is getting tiring. Crzyclarks (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested approach

We shouldn't be looking at individual studies on this issue; there are too many, which say too many different things, for us to reconcile without straying into WP:OR. How about we try identifying all available recent, reliable academic reviews of the studies that have been done on the issue, and compile them and identify their central findings, and then draft a proposed new wording based on that?--Trystan (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I was under the impression that recent studies put the number at 1-3%, with few anomalous results. If I'm wrong than by all means change it to reflect the increase/decrease in that number. What I'm objecting to is merging two, very different scientific conclusions from studies on homosexuality and same-sex contact. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Trystan's approach is a good one. And Crzyclarks is correct that we shouldn't be combining two different sources to conclude text that is not made clear by the sources; that most definitely is WP:SYNTH. Flyer22 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty is that we aren't simply summarizing two clearly separate figures into one, but dozens of separate data points. Measures of incidence of homosexuality include self-identification, same-sex attraction, same-sex contact, and more, all with varying definitions from study to study, and widely varying results based on location, how the study was conducted, etc. In that light, I think it would actually be less OR to say there are a variety of measures that lead to this range of results than to assert there are two distinct numbers that emerge from the research. Perhaps the best approach would be to remove the stats entirely until a more thorough canvassing of the sources is done.--Trystan (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed it. I feel the 13% prevalence of same-sex contact isn't reliable. The source doesn't list how many people were polled. I think we should eliminate that source and use the next highest reliable source. Any objections? Crzyclarks (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Was there consensus to change this while waiting for the recent, reliable sources to be compiled? Where is this revision coming from in the sources? – Jonadin (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean when the person changed it to 2-13% or when I changed it back? If it's for me, it's because it would've been synthesising and maybe OR to combine the two results. There are plenty of sources listed there and also in the demographies section which differentiate between same-sex contact and homosexuality very clearly. It might be a little to large a statistic right now, as the British Census or whatever said their results were a 0.3%-1.5% prevalence of homosexuality. Though it could be an anomaly. A more accurate and perhaps less arbitrarily added sources for the statistic is required, though until then we should go on what we know. Combining the two results isn't the conclusion to come by if you think the statistics need to be evaluated. Crzyclarks (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No I just can't see where the second part of the sentence is coming from (probably because I can't access some of the sources), but I think I see the first part is from this source? – Jonadin (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I remember the source that carried our 3 different studies, going on memory, I believe there were 3 each for homosexuality and same-sex contact. The 10% for same-sex contact was actually the highest of the 3 they did, (actually 10.1%), the other two were much lower. The source is there, I can't remember which one though. Crzyclarks (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

There has been an ongoing edit war since May 16th. Differing viewpoints about content correctiness is not an excuse to edit war, per policy in WP:WAR. Note 3RR does not imply a right to game the system by keeping reverts within the 3 reverts/day bright line. Continued edit warring will result in admin intervention, which may include article locking and/or editor blocking. Please keep the content disagreement on the talk page until there is consensus. It's not fair to our readers to wind up in the middle of a content fight. Again, it's not about being right, it's about inapproriate behavior. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Mental health

The current information says that the increased mental illness among homosexual people is only due to society and how they are treated. There are other possibilities [2]. The last point Richard Dawkins makes is that the gay gene could come with other genes. I think the introduction and mental health sections should reflect that the gay gene could be connected to mental illness genes. I'm not saying to use the YouTube link as a source, but if some people would like to find some sources and expand those sections a bit more, that'd be good. Crzyclarks (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Child abuse and homosexual couples

In line with the editing guideline WP:Be bold, I reverted this edit by Crzyclarks (talk · contribs) which conflated the length of homosexual couple relationships and child abuse by stating:

While there is no scientific basis to child abuse, on average, homosexual couples are more likely to have more sexual partners and stay together for a shorter time than heterosexual couples.

Based on the sources http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=58&issue=1&page=85 and a footnote containing "[Current Population Reports: U.S. Census Bureau (2002)] [2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census]".

Crzyclarks responded with a partial revert and the edit comment "Stop synthesising these conclusions! Provide a valid reason for it on the discussion page before reverting."

I see nothing in the suggested sources that mentions child abuse in any form. The claim appears to be without substance and amounts to original research by Crzyclarks, and as I read it, appears to be an unsourced defamatory allegation that homosexual couples are more likely to abuse children than other couples. Please take this as my valid reason for reverting. --Fæ (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That was to do with the introduction of prevalence of homosexuality and same-sex contact. You undid the edit you mentioned just then, but also my other one. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting there are reliable sources to demonstrate that homosexual couples are more likely to abuse children than heterosexual couples? If so, please link to the sources here. As for unpicking your edits, there is no obligation for other editors to do that when being bold and removing unsourced and apparently defamatory material. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. I made 2 separate edits. One was in the introduction, nothing to do with the child abuse thing. You undid that one, maybe thinking it was part of my other, larger edit. My larger edit did not comment on child sexual abuse, but on the differences in relationships between gay and straight people. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, your edit here appears to make a clear implication that there is a "non-scientific" correlation between child abuse and the average time of homosexual couple relationships compared to heterosexual relationships. This appears to be nobody else's addition to the article apart from yours. Was that a mistake? --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I was addressing the stereotypes mentioned, that child abuse isn't true, but the other two are, to the extent that on average they've more sexual partners and shorter relationships, but that it isn't universal for all gays. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, please take care with the way you are presenting this material, the statement as it was, appeared to be defamatory and a misuse of citations to make it appear that the claims might be supportable. Please take care to point out where you are relying on sources with a strong geographic bias, one inconclusive study in one location does not generalize to a justifiable generic statement about homosexual relationships. Any controversial or critical statement about a frequently stereotyped group would need careful verification with multiple independent quality sources. --Fæ (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean it looked like I was saying child abuse is true and that the citations used didn't support that? If it's about the relationship sources, they are from two geographical locations, and I don't think the third one is even specific to an area. I can go out and find some more sources, but it's not very controversial. Being male means gays will have more partners and shorter relationships by default really. I suppose lesbians are a little more complicated. But the sources take into account both genders. I have posted how I would like to word it a couple of topics up. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate what Fæ said, this is directly from the study that you cite: "Conclusion: The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders." Seeing as it mentions nothing about the length of relationships, I do not see how that could be used to support your claim. Additionally, the source states the following just below it: "Although many studies have assessed the mental health status of homosexual men and women, the results are still inconclusive," which would require noting of if used in the article. Your other source (Edward Laumann) is one book, so allowing that to overshadow the many associations that support the opposite via multiple studies would be WP:UNDUE. Additionally, that book covers many topics, so I would not deem it reliable to use it as the sole source supporting a one-sentence stereotype/prejudice. Not to mention that it is compiled using one "1995 survey of four Chicago neighborhoods" (via the column on the left here). As Fæ stated, that would be a major geographical bias (not to mention old reference) considering that you changed "Negative stereotypes characterize LGB people…" to "Negative stereotypes characterize all LGB people…" and are not specifying that the study took place solely in Chicago.

I see your revised writing here, but you still do not have the sources required to state that homosexual relationships do not last as long as heterosexual relationships because you are trying to prove a stereotype of all homosexual people based on one study done in Chicago. You said, "What I want to change it to is that the stereotype of ALL gay people having more sexual partners and shorter relationships is not true, but they will on average have more partners and shorter relationships", which you are not proving with your one source. Also, I dislike the inclusion of the mention of child abuse when it is not being addressed further because it appears as if that is being justified as well.

Your claim "Being male means gays will have more partners and shorter relationships by default really" is completely original research, and you are proven incorrect in a number of studies. (Therefore, since you seem to be supporting your claim by yourself, this must be even less "controversial".) The section "Relationships" on the Homosexuality article cites this source, which—if you would look on the first page—is compiled by what I would think to be a number of relatively reliable associations. The text and studies cited from page 14 on in section III refute your claim. Additionally, the text and sources in the section LGBT stereotypes#Sex and relationships disprove what you are attempting to add to this article. – Jonadin93 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The mental health source contains information on the relationships of the people interviewed. The proportion of homosexuals in long term relationships was smaller than heterosexuals. I don't see why the study occurring in Chicago has anything to do with me changing the wording to: Negative stereotypes characterize all LGB people. The 'all' part has nothing to do with Chicago. It's not just based on one study in Chicago. There's also the sources comparing the U.S Census Bureau to the Gay/Lesbian Online Census. The mental health source was done in Amsterdam. I'm not even touching the child abuse stuff, so I don't know why everybody keeps going on about that. The court source you sent me to doesn't disprove me or the other sources at all. Your interpretation of what it says is wrong. The edit I want to make, sticks to what your source says. It also adds however, that on average they have more sexual partners and long-term relationships are less common. The source you sent me to doesn't dispute that. In regard to original research, it's more like common sense (which is also backed up). Crzyclarks (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that I refuted these accusations effectively. Why does what I added deserve removal? Crzyclarks (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

According to policy, consensus is decision-making that "involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." And also, "The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible." None of the editors in this discussion have expressed content with your proposed changes, so I do not see how you are under such an impression. I did not respond further because I believe that I have adequately expressed my reasons for objecting your proposed changes, and carrying this further would only lead to a circular argument which could take a turn for the uncivil. I do not believe that consensus is for your addition as it is currently being proposed, seeing as a different editor recently reverted this attempt by you to add the material again. – Jonadin93 (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Your reasons haven't been valid though. There isn't geographical bias. Amsterdam, United States, and a non-geographical census are the sources. The book source doesn't just represent Chicago, but major cities in general. The source you claimed disproved the sources I used, didn't do that at all. Other challenges have been because of misreading what I wrote and maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I would like to see how my current proposal isn't worthy of inclusion. Crzyclarks (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Crzyclarks, I think this way of discussing your proposal has reached a natural conclusion. If you disagree with the current consensus, or believe that consensus is unclear, then you could try one of the Dispute resolution process that exist. You may want to try putting forward a short and unambiguous proposal for change as part of a community wide Requests for comment which may encourage opinions from those not, so far, involved in this local discussion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Guardian poll

The following conversation is a continuation of the above section (#Child abuse and homosexual couples) regarding the reversal of this edit removing a poll taken by Guardian.

Thanks. I'm not sure how many more sources I need to add this information, but maybe in a week, maybe less, when I'm less busy I'll get some more. Regarding the recent edit I made for the polls in the section demographies, I feel that they're unreliable because they don't actually give an accurate picture of the demographies. Scientific studies place the numbers at half to less than half that the polls do. If anybody is not sure what the reason for that is, it's because polls are much more of an opt-in system, as opposed to the random selection of studies. Anybody agree/disagree on its removal? Crzyclarks (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You should probably ask for Wikiwind's opinion on that matter, as they were the one who restored the material that you removed. However, you are not citing the scientific studies which you claim refute the poll's data, so for now I agree with Wikiwind's revert. (If you are referring to the sentence before the one in question beginning with "A 1992 study reported" as the percentage is 6.1%—less than half of 13%—, then I disagree with the assumed inaccuracy of the poll as it took place 16 years after the study did.) Additionally, the sentence denotes that the information is coming from a poll so the reader is able to interpret its validity however they wish, but I believe it adds a recent context to the section in regards to the UK.

I have just edited the sentence (because it was basically copied from the source) and copyedited the section a bit. I think that the contrast between the two sentences is interesting, and should provide the reader with the idea that it is not possible to measure the number of homosexuals and bisexuals in a geographic region to an accuracy of 100%. Both sets of data were collected in different ways (one through an online poll run by a media outlet, the other through personal visits and telephone calls by the government) so they provide different outlooks. – Jonadin (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources in the introduction of this article are scientific studies and are in the 1% to 3% range for homosexuality. The Guardian poll says 6.1%. The problem of the online poll is that because it is a purely opt-in system, different people are more likely to bother voting than others. In this case gay people would vote more often than straight people. I don't want to hear OR crap btw, it's just common sense. They do provide different outlooks, but under a section of demographies, accurate information is required. I have a feeling that a lot of people will interpret polls as more accurate than studies. I think it should be removed, or at least a mention of why the poll is probably inaccurate, or why it is so different to the studies. Crzyclarks (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources in the introduction of this article are scientific studies and are in the 1% to 3% range for homosexuality. The Guardian poll says 6.1%.

No, the sentence says: ...while only 6% of Britons identify themselves as either homosexual or bisexual.

The problem of the online poll is that because it is a purely opt-in system, different people are more likely to bother voting than others.

Where you find that this is online poll? There is nothing about methodology in that article, but I found another article about the same poll with methodology section. Did you even read the article?--В и к и T 08:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you would pick on my sentence because I was out by 0.1%. I read the article on homosexuality, which didn't have methodology section. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources for homosexuality, same-sex contact and homosexual feelings

The statistics in the introduction about these demographies may need to be reviewed. List the sources that you think should contribute to the number given in the introduction/demography section. Crzyclarks (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I will be honest with you here. I have NEVER heard of 1-3%. The fact that you have used FRC as a source tells me that you have a GRAVE bias toward homosexuals, because the FRC is marked as a known hate group by the SPLC. In addition, they have been shown to have faked their results many times over. Therefore, WHY should we trust you on the 1-3%? Swifty819 (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC) 06:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Granted there is a lot of writing up top, but I said that I got that information from a different editor who posted it somewhere else. Never heard of the FRC before somebody pointed out that it's a bad source. But the sources actually used were statistics from a U.S census and a poll by the gay/lesbian alliance (or something like that) which has nothing to do with FRC. Regarding the 1-3%, sources are used in determining the statistic, not my opinion. I was hoping we could come up with a less arbitrarily stated statistic; by having people posting sources and then deciding which ones to use. Crzyclarks (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, when I saw 1-3%, I was surprised too because I've never seen such a low number either. Family Research Council is indeed an anti-gay hate group that actively lies about gay people. I can see if I can find some sources when I get time. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 02:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Same here - that number seems unusually low. Furthermore, we can never take a percentage like that and say "this is the percentage of gay and lesbian people in [given population]". It would only be the percentage of openly gay people. --Scientiom (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Best to add the sources here before taking their result into account and changing the article because many results have been discarded as an anomaly, such as 0.3% and 4%. The studies are done anonymously, so it is not just openly gay people. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's very difficult to find the number of gay people in the population because it depends on if they are willing to disclose that information for a variety of reasons (prejudice, personal mental stress/struggle, etc.). There should be a note explaining the low numbers. I don't know how to do it. Someone should. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 03:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The study isn't done in the presence of the subject's family and friends. The studies usually take all circumstances into account anyway, so we can't synthesise the results. Also, it's best to keep the result at 1-3% and decide any changes to that number on the talk page and reach a consensus on the studies to be taken into account before changing it. Crzyclarks (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think the 1-6% range should be used because the sources are reliable and provide that range. It's not an anomaly because it's what the sources that are actually used say. Look at it.. Just saying.... .3% isn't there and neither are other numbers you provided. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 03:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at the demography section, 0.3% is another number that needs to be taken into account if you want to add the 6%. Crzyclarks (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Link to ENDA inappropriate in intro

In the fourth paragraph, just before the contents list, the word 'employment' is linked to Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It seems a bit odd to link to a specific piece of proposed legislation in one country, especially since similar laws have been passed or proposed in many other countries. The most relevant article I can see is Employment discrimination, or maybe Anti-discrimination law or List of anti-discrimination acts? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I agree the link should take a global view. Unfortunately I'm not sure there's an appropriate place to point. This paragraph deals more with greater legal rights and so the link should deal with lgbt specific anti-discrimination law in employment. I'm not sure any of the above actually deal with this point specifically. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Correction to external link

I've noticed that the link for the second Journal Article in the References section is broken, but I don't want to make the correction myself because I'm the technical manager of the site being linked to. It wouldn't be adding a link to our own site, just messing with the one that exists, but I'd rather avoid the impression of COI. The link to the article, "The problem of homosexuality" should be

http://hearth.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=hearth;rgn=full%20text;idno=4732756_885_001;view=image;seq=4

I think the link got truncated because of our site's use of semi-colons. The semi-colons could be replaced with ampersands and the link would still work. The current link sends users to our site's front page and leaves them to look for the article themselves. Assuming that the community agrees to this change, could someone please make the update?

Frances.webb (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, deleting the link also does solve the problem. I had thought that the link was included for historical psychological theories, but maybe there are sufficient other references to accomplish the same thing. Frances.webb (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 18:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"As much as 6%"

Is somebody going to revert that obviously biased edit? Crzyclarks (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean biased? Some estimates are even higher. There's always the problem of how to define homosexuality: for example, same-sex sexual behaviour is higher than self-identification.--DVD-junkie | talk | 17:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It should say 0.3% to 6%, or at the very least 1%-6%. "As much as 6%" gives the wrong impression. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually several studies have shown percentages around 6% or up to 8% to 10%. This (the present wording) is probably a fair compromise. Infact, it may be more accurate to say "up to 8% or 10%". --Scientiom (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The majority of studies are 1-3%; that excludes anomalous results. "0.3% to 6%" is more accurate than "as high as 6%", because of the impression it gives. Saying "As high as 6%" gives a different impression on the reader as to the results of the studies. If you say "as high as 6%" then you also need to say "as low as 0.3%". Crzyclarks (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

How can you possibly know what impression it gives? HiLo48 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm a human that can read English. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You can validly tell us what impression YOU get from reading it, but it would only be through extreme arrogance or foolishness that you could claim to know what impression it gives everybody else. Your impression of what impression it gives others means absolutely nothing to Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It means quite a bit, as talking in purely factual language and ignoring the impression it can give would make the article worthless. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Scientiom and HiLo48, as you can see, Crzyclarks just wants to argue over basically nothing. Saying "as much as 6%" given the sources noted is a fair compromise and makes sense according to the facts in the sources. So, if you guys want to find more sources that indicate the higher percentages, that would be nice. Have a great day. Have a great day Crzyclarks. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 20:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Everything that is in the article needs to be factual, but it also needs to take into account the impression it will give the reader. "As much as 6%" is very different to "0.3% to 6%". There is no reason to not have that. I don't want to argue over nothing, this change from specific percentages has been done for an obvious reason. Thanks. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yea, it was done to solve the issue of either beginning at 1% or at .3%. The statement means the exact same thing, don't know what you're talking about. You need to calm down, drink some water or something. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 20:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why 0.3% isn't valid. Nevertheless, few people will see "as much as 6%" to mean it could be as low as 0.3/1%. Technically it means the same thing, but the impression it gives is very different to the results of the studies. I'm calm, usually smiling as I'm listening to The Ricky Gervais Show whilst editing. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not my impression. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's invalid, but it's included obviously if it's as much as 6%. Come on, there's no argument here. I'm going to the movies. See you later. lol – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 21:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and again, there are some sources which give higher percentages. The present wording is a fairly fine compromise. --Scientiom (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop pretending that changing the result from "1-3%" to "as much as 6%" is a compromise. You insist on adding anomalous results, but you also need to use the low end of the spectrum. You're being deliberately deceptive by editing that out. Crzyclarks (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, you want to say there are as little an amount of gay people in the world as possible, that's why you want to mention .3% specifically. Yet, it's not that serious and it's included in what the article says now as written. So, what's the problem? I'm not understanding. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 22:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I want the article to be accurate and neutral. I'm as sure 0.3% is too low as 6% is too high. Saying "as much as 6%" is ignoring the minimum according to studies, which is 0.3%. Technically it means the studies could be saying as low as 0% if you have "as much". People will certainly not get that impression, but rather that the studies place the number at around 5% or more. There is no reason to leave out the both ends of the results and it is obviously biased to do so. Crzyclarks (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not ignoring anything, it's giving accurate information while flowing well in it's writing. That would be fine if some buffoon claimed there are 0 gay people. I wouldn't give it any attention. Your impression is pressed. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 23:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't provided a reason to not include the low end of the results. If you're going to include the high, then you need to include the low. What's the point in giving the reader an incomplete picture of the numbers? Crzyclarks (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)