Talk:Homosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Homosexuality was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:
  • Actions from last GA review:
    • Address remaining four citation needed templates
    • Address 2x globalize templates
    • Fix improve template
    • Add alt descriptions to images.

References[edit]

Worth of the term:[edit]

Homosexual:

An individual whom only takes their own species in consideration when considering cyclic convolutional affectors (multi complex conjugate pairings beyound its own particular species, region, and/or environment).

Should be added, due this form of describtor being a defacto relational pertinence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.72.229 (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't add gibberish to articles. --NeilN talk to me 15:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Either that's a very suspect dictionary definition, or he's trying to claim we're selfish... Thanks Jenova20 (email) 16:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about you all, but I'll take affectional convolutors over convolutional affectors any day. RivertorchFIREWATER 19:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Choosing"?[edit]

«Typically this individual was recognized early in life, given a choice by the parents to follow the path and, if the child accepted the role, raised in the appropriate manner, learning the customs of the gender it had chosen.» so what does this mean exactly? They got to choose whether to be a homosexual or not? Can someone please explain this?—‎Lost Whispers talk 14:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the paragraph is unreferenced, so it's impossible to tell what the sources that the wording is based on have to say. From our Two-Spirit article:

"Two Spirit" is not interchangeable with "LGBT Native American" or "Gay Indian"; this title differs from most western, mainstream definitions of sexuality and gender identity in that it is not so much about whom one is sexually interested in, or how one personally identifies; rather, it is a sacred, spiritual and ceremonial role that is recognized and confirmed by the Elders of the Two Spirit's ceremonial community.

The preceding is referenced, and I think we might do well to adjust the wording here per the wording there. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Rivertorch: that would be really appreciated, because I'm translating it into my language and I got really confused at that part, because in the lead it has been stated that scientists don't think homosexuality is a choice, but that part is basically saying that parents gave the choice to be a homosexual or not. Am I wrong? plus, unrefrenced statements is not encouraged in Wikipedia as far as I am aware.—‎Lost Whispers talk 15:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion[edit]

I wish to nominate this article for deletion, only because there is not yet any credible evidence from the psychology field showing homosexuality is not based solely or in part on individual or group delusion. I could discuss but, do not think that this is the relevant forum for such discussion. KING (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to know better. If you wish to nominate it, go right ahead. If not, please refrain from wasting precious bytes on forum-type comments. RivertorchFIREWATER 02:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The editor is a sporadic editor, with significant gaps in editing from 2007/2009 to 2015. The editor is essentially a newbie, and likely doesn't know better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I've struck that bit. It was also a bit chiding, for which I apologize. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that information. I probably could have worded my introduction better. I suppose I feel that there is unlikely to be a consensus for deletion and, that it would be better to improve the article since it is a real phenomenon. Unfortunately I do not find myself to be quite the competent editor that I would like to be. There is some supporting material for the thesis, however, most that I can locate are in some un-referenced, indirect attributed quotes in the midst of bile and ranting (which I ignored) and I have been unable to locate the original sources for the quotations, for example attributed to Dr. Camille Paglia. I suggest it would take the work of an expert in the psychology field to put together available material into something suitable in an encyclopedic form. The article truely is lacking. KING (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

We have specific rules for dealing with fringe theories. (Here's the guideline.) In a nutshell, they are mentioned only if there are reliable sources documenting their existence, and they are covered proportionally to their prominence (e.g., if their prominence is nil, we don't cover them at all). You're correct that there's "unlikely to be a consensus for deletion" (congratulations, you won the understatement of the week award). What you should also be aware of is that propounding fringe theories on article talk pages is really not a good idea. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I would not think that Dr. Camille Paglia is too obscure and, her field seems to be in psychology however, point taken - it is does not seem to be the sauce of psychologists everywhere. KING (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)