Jump to content

Talk:Societal attitudes toward homosexuality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Colon v1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JTorre23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV blanking of references

[edit]

Scientiom is repeatedly blanking material that is referenced, because apparently it does not sit well with his point of view. Please note again that the scope of this article is "Societal attitudes TOWARD homosexuality" but his version of the article is skewing the information and is not giving an honest depiction of the full range of "Societal attitudes TOWARD homosexuality" to be found on planet Earth. "IDON'TLIKEIT" is NOT a valid reason for blanking what the references say. The following information needs to be restored for balance and more points of view:

Some opponents of the movement, such as Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition, say that gay people are seeking special rights, not equal rights, and that the movement should not be referred to as a civil rights movement. They argue, for example, that in seeking the right to marry members of the same sex, gay people are seeking a special right for themselves and disregarding the fact that polygamists and other groups defined by sexual behavior do not have this right either.[ref] Netzhammer, Mel, "'The Gay Agenda' and 'Gay Rights, Special Rights' and the Construction of a Homosexual Role" at Buffalo State [/ref] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the view of one person is of sufficient weight to be "societal", this is going to be a very long article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If only one side of the story is allowed to be told and only one point of view is given about a controversial topic, it's going to be a very short article. Long articles are better, and if you cannot recognize this view as "societal" then you do not have an honest definition of "society". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the sourcing indicating that it is "societal". Billions of people out there, and we're saying this is Ralph Reed's belief? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we didn't say that. Read it again, it says "Some opponents of the movement, such as Ralph Reed". The reference being cited mentions many other similarly worded criticisms from others as well. A wikipedia article on the same subject isn't neutral when one summarily removes all the viewpoints critical of one's own. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference being cited notes about three folks making similar statements - Trent Lott, Ralph Reed, and the unnamed narrator. And the reference being cited doesn't appear to be a WP:RS, it looks to be some WP:SPS. And it doesn't appear to be a comment on societal attitudes toward homosexuality, but on gay rights. So if your argument is that we should have poorly-sourced off-topic commentary because it's against homosexuality, that wouldn't seem to be a winning argument. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is to an academic paper on the same subject of this article, "Societal attitudes toward homosexuality". The paper, while it is expressing a pro-gay rights viewpoint, follows the scholarly requirement of acknowledging the existence of opposing viewpoints and critiquing those viewpoints head-on in their own words, rather than misrepresenting them, or running and hiding and pretending there are no opposing viewpoints. If it had been a paper on the topic of Societal attitudes, but yet it ran and hid from the opposing viewpoints, pretending they didn't exist in society and painted a deceptively favorable, one-sided picture, it would have deserved an F and been useless for scholarly purposes. A wikipedia article on the controversial subject of Societal attitudes should be at least as scholarly and twice as neutral. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems is that homosexuality, as its contemporary name makes it clear, is a kind of sexuality, rather than an ideological viewpoint. People who advocate tolerant/liberal/libertarian views toward human sexuality consistently tend to be more accepting of people in sexual minorities, and their causes (that are generally held when people in those sexual minorities are open about their status, and proud of that). Most causes advocated by sexual minorities makes the perfect sense for almost everybody in sexual minorities, but the fact that one is part of a sexual minority won't mean this person will have libertarian, liberal, tolerant or even non-biased/accurate views of people of its own sexual minority, let alone all others. We have a ton of different political and ideological objectives related to our own particular and diverse views, experiences and issues, of which same-sex marriage legalization is just one of them (because it is becoming each day of a stronger common sense that straight love isn't superior to other kinds of love, and because we don't say in our Constitutions that people get married to have biological children). The fact that a person criticizes same-sex marriage or other causes by a mainstream American conservative movement doesn't, at least in theory, mean that this person generalizes it to all points-of-view and causes of, say, liberal Western gay people. It is conservatives themselves that try all the time to make the construct that their opposition to same-sex marriage isn't an opposition to legal same-sex love (if it is true or not, not the business of Wikipedians as far as this article goes). (Here in Brazil, going as far as to say that homophobia does not exist in the way "we paint it" in Brazil or other contemporary Western societies and we are just sick Marxist militants pushing our own Gramscist agenda to make Christians look bad and end freedom of speech painting ourselves as oppressed victims... talk about drama [of theirs, of course].) Lguipontes (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article being rewritten from a discernible Point-of-View

[edit]

The entire language of this article is being rewritten from a discernible Point of View that will be difficult for probably at least 95% of people to identify with. Language written from a particular point-of-view is forbidden by the NPOV policy. Articles about controversial subjects are required to be neutral since many people feel strongly on both sides of the controversy. For these reasons, I will be adding a POV check to the article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems generally neutral to me. I'm removing the template. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh NO RObotNinjaParrot, it is so definitively over the edge for the pro homosexuality that this article should be labeled how we make any who differs our opinion on Gays into pariahs, haters or fools, even a note to how psychology changed its definition from Mental Disorder to acceptable behavior in modern society

This is totally a POV article and as such is endemic in the Wikipedia compendiu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.226.162 (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of File:Status of gay persons.jpg

[edit]

This file shows a map with color encodings of the result of a formula. The formula is uncited, and appears to the the WP:OR of a Wikipedia contributor. What source says that this particular set of indices is a good measure of the "Status of gay persons" Who says that some indices are to be rated only one-third as much as others? Also, who chose the particular moment in time to rate these issues along these various scales? And who says what level of the sum of these indices represents "not accepted" vs "evolving" vs "integrated"? For the matter of that, where are the sources that even give the values of the indices. I prefer to assume that these have been quoted accurately, but giving the actual sources might show up reliability issues. Even assuming that the values of the indices have been accurately used in creating this graphic, choosing this particular combination is a violation of WP:SYNTH unless there is a cited source for the formula, and if there is that source should be properly named. I have therefore removed the image and its caption from the article. DES (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the map in question.
File:Status of gay persons.jpg
This map shows the status of gays and lesbians worldwide, analysing democracy, development, visibility, legal aspects, political presence. The cities classification show accurately the most integrating cities. Status of gay persons = (Human Development Index 2013 + Democracy Index 2012) + Legal recognition + (Gay Pride index 2011 + Gay visibility up to 10 + Political visibility up to 10) /3
In my view, it can't be used. It's original research and violates WP:POV. If there is an authoritative source that has already produced such a map, then I think that would be worth considering.- MrX 23:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a clear case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to me. It appears to depend on an index calculation that was invented by the map author and isn't well-defined anyway. And don't say WP:OI - this is a case where the image does "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". It should be removed. - htonl (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, I has since been restored by User:Aless2899, who seems to be a relatively new editor. DES (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relatively new is putting it mildly. All of his edits are related to adding this map to articles. - htonl (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested page protection so that this can be sorted out. - MrX 23:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just added all the sources regarding the map. It has actually already been published by a European newspaper, OneEurope. It is a well-known journal that could be considered authoritative source. http://one-europe.info/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aless2899 (talk • contribs)

The sources you cite on the image description page seem to be sources for the individual indices. Can you provide a precise source for the formula, and for the scale used to rate countries under it? A specific page on one-europe.info or wherever the source of the formula can be found, please? The image does not seem to appear on the main page of that site at this moment. DES (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does, on the main page there is a section there that auto-rotates 4 images, of which if this is one. From there, te specific article is at http://one-europe.info/gay-rights-a-long-story-of-struggles Tarc (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have now found this article. It seems that you are User:Aless2899 is the author of the article, and that although the map is used, no discussion of the formula behind it is included. Have I missed anything? DES (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well...it was a blog dated today for one. I have removed it. Now, there are still many other sources used on the image.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far as i can see, each of those sources supports ONE of the indices that the map is reporting a sum of. None of them supports combining that particular set of data according to that particular formula. DES (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. Not sure if that is against policy or guidelines exactly. I seem to remember my bringing up a similar question on an OWS graphic that I believed to be OR and synth at one time and the prevailing consensus was that it was not inappropriate. I would have to re-check that graphic and discussion to be sure, but from what you said here it is that an index used to state one fact was combined with another index (and more) to create the colored graphic image. But you also have other concerns. On the face of it, it does sound like synthesis, but we are discussing an image and not a claim in prose that combines facts to create a new fact.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OneEurope is a student magazine and Alessandro, who I presume is the user who uploaded the map here, is a university student. This is just a blog post by a college kid. We should not be using his novel ranking system whether he gives out his formula or not.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. Mr. Siegel seems to have this right on the nose from everything I can see and the only index supported seems to be the HDI. I have no clue what the editor was attempting other than to somehow add the sums together in a less than academic manner....well OK...in no apparent manner at all. I have no clue what is being attempted here and it does look very much like original research.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources used was a Wikipedia article, List of the first LGBT holders of political offices in the United Kingdom.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think protection has served its purpose by now, so I'll unprotect early. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not this map violates any policy, it tells a fuzzy story based on an equation that gives mathematical precision but that doesn't make it accurate. It shouldn't be in here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines

[edit]

An editor has repeatedly tried to delete a reference to relative social acceptance of homosexuality in the Philippines, citing this image as a reference showing that it's not. However, our information as presented is sourced, and how the country votes at the UN would be a reflection of governmental, not societal, views. I invite the editor to try to make the case here and gain consensus before attempting to repeat the edit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of ILGA?

[edit]

I don't want to get into any extended debate, but it seems surprising that the "Association with child abuse and pedophilia" makes no mention of the significant ILGA controversies. Many anti-gay activists certainly mention them frequently... AnonMoos (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I added hatnotes under a subsection to the main article, which I believe are the subsection on NAMBLA's Wikipedia article and on ILGA's Wikipedia article. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

[edit]

Pew oversample Arabs in their survey of Israel. Quote from the report (page 13): "Multi-stage cluster sample stratified by Israel’s six districts, urbanity, and socioeconomic status, with an oversample of Arabs," "Sample size: 922 (504 Jews, 406 Arabs, 12 others)." Note that Israeli population is around 75% Jewish, 20% Arab and 5% other. I'm removing Pew data from article. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's not appropriate to use the percentages in the main text. The survey states "In Israel, where views of homosexuality are mixed, secular Jews are more than twice as likely as those who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox to say homosexuality should be accepted (61% vs. 26%); just 2% of Israeli Muslims share this view." I'd sum that up as "a survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Survey found that acceptance of homosexuality is higher among secular Jews than people who describe themselves as traditional, religious or ultra-Orthodox" -- Aronzak (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality

[edit]

When considering this issue of homosexuality, I can not seem to find an answer to one of my questions. All living things have the ability of reproduction with the exception of gay individuals, Why? For the lack of a better term... mother nature during the time of creation gave all living things the ability to reproduce to insure the continuation of all things created except gay individuals. That seems to be a contradiction of purpose, why did mother nature exclude homosexuality from all the rest of living things and why hasn't homosexuality become extinct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.225.70 (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of statistics

[edit]

As seen here and here, I have twice reverted Colon v1's deletion of statistics. Colon v1, who appears to be a WP:Student editor, called the statistics outdated. I stated, "The removed material addresses different demographics, which is important. If any of this is outdated, add sources to show/replace that material."

Although Colon v1 added material in place of the removed content, Colon v1 has done nothing to replace some of the different demographics that the original content addresses. What proof is there that these statistics are outdated? Old does not always mean outdated. Sometimes, especially when it comes to research on sexual orientation and beliefs about it, the most up-to-date research is old research. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, a survey from 2011 is not that old, especially in terms of societal attitudes toward homosexuality, and Colon v1 seemed to leave some old content in while removing other old content. I don't see how the content that Colon v1 removed is any less deserving of representation or is irrelevant (another term used by Colon v1). I restored this bit that Colon v1 added; I didn't mean to remove the recent material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please explain

[edit]

"The empirical research shows that sexual orientation does not affect the likelihood that people will abuse children.[88][89][90] Many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.[88]"

despite the (overwhelming) facts that show same-sex molestation is disproportionate to the percentage of homosexuals in the population (see "The Gay Report" among others), this is rejected by Herek et al on the basis that same-sex molestation says nothing about "adult sexual orientation" -- in other words, a man who molests little boys is not, technically, a homosexual?

am I the only one who thinks this is logically a very, very weak argument? and it seems to only come from Herek and other academics with an obvious pro-gay bias... first off, this interesting theory, means a teenager can't be gay because he is not an adult -- if a 16 year old adolescent male in high school 

is in a relationship with another 16 year old adolescent male, neither of them qualifies as gay because, like an adult child molester, we know nothing of his "adult sexual orientation" ... no?

and so, correct me if i'm wrong. if we can say, for a second, that a man who has sex with a boy is engaged in same-sex intercourse, thus "homosexual" sex (not the position of the article or of high academia, but a view shared by *many* people if not the majority), then same-sex molestation is totally disproportionate to the population of homosexuals?

am i wrong? what am i missing?

it looks like this whole business about "adult" orientation is a very intellectually dishonest way to circumvent the obvious statistics that stare us in the face. see "the Gay Report" which was actually published by gay researchers and widely accepted by the gay community.

104.244.230.240 (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, about 1/7 to 1/6 of all cases of child sexual abuse prosecuted in the Netherlands are homosexual in nature. So, yeah, this suggests that homosexuals/bisexuals are more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals, but since there are so few homosexuals in the population, heterosexual child abuse is much more frequent than homosexual child abuse. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both you and the IP are wrong because homosexual men are attracted to adult males, and heterosexual men to adult females. Surely you don't think attraction to little girls is an aspect of heterosexuality. What motivates child sexual abuse is often attraction to children as a sexual target - pedophilia. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get into all of this, because it will require me pulling out solid sources and making a long comment, but I will state that many or most men in these child sexual abuse and statutory rape cases identify as heterosexual. Yes, that includes men who have sexually abused boys. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding what motivates child sexual abuse (a category that can cover minors who are not prepubescent and are out of the range of pedophilic interest), there are a variety of reasons. Research indicates that there are far more child sexual abusers and statutory rapists than there are pedophiles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And there are heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles and child sexual abusers, meaning that a heterosexual pedophile's sexual attraction is directed toward prepubescent girls because he is both heterosexual and a pedophile. Often, with child sexual abuse cases, though, the male child sexual abuser's reported sexual orientation does not align with the sex of the victim he targeted; this is why I mentioned heterosexual-identified men having sexually abused boys. The typology noted here has been seen a number of times in the research. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy?

[edit]

Isn't the lengthy section on historical cultures redundant with LGBT history? Not to mention history of homosexuality, homosexuality, and the articles on homosexuality in each culture. It seems it would make more sense having this article focus on the modern world. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent child sexual abuse and pedophilia content

[edit]

Abhishekiucaa, stop attempting to add this content without discussion. At Draft talk:Homosexuality and likelihood of being a sexual molester, I stated, "Issues with this draft include the title, WP:Editorializing, WP:Synthesis, some poor sourcing, and a lack of WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. If it were created, I would take it to AfD and suggest a merge in that AfD or propose a merge on the article's talk page. But only unproblematic material would be merged to Societal attitudes toward homosexuality#Association with child abuse and pedophilia." I also told you, "it needs work and certainly a trim before it's added [to this article]. I suggest that at [this talk page], you propose adding some material from your draft [here]. I also suggest that you move your drat to your own sandbox (meaning copying and pasting what's in it to your sandbox). And then editors can work on tweaking the material, either by advising you or directly editing your sandbox. We can come to a consensus that way. You can then discard this article draft."

Your draft was delclined, and I don't see that you fixed any issues with the draft. You should not keep adding this contested content without consensus. See WP:Consensus. And also see WP:Edit warring. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Israel

[edit]

This section references a website that discusses modern views based on ancient scripture, not ancient Israeli views. The website cited also uses translated bibles as a resource, many of which are known to have intentional changes made during translation (for example, the King James bible). This section should be removed or rewritten with a source that actually discusses ancient Israeli views toward homosexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karandora (talk • contribs) 03:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia

[edit]

Delete the fact Indonesia " as the largest Muslim nation by population " as Indonesia won't become the largest Muslim country anymore soon ( Estimated in 2030) https://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/the-future-of-the-global-muslim-population/ , Will be replaced by Pakistan >>>>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayu Fuller (talk • contribs) 14:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality&oldid=1219963813"