LGBTQ+ studies Template‑class

This template is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Multidel

Resolved

 – Done. Banjeboi 17:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once the above issues have been settled I'd like to see sexology re-added, possibly under the Study/research section. Banjeboi 10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this would also be a good addition. --Ludwigs2 00:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, sure. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Done. -- Banjeboi 11:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Proposal #5 discussion it's suggested to add Queer studies under the "Research" section.

• Support. seems like a good match. Banjeboi 22:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above. Queerudite (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support --Cooljuno411 (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Ludwigs2 08:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure. What would be the reason for including Queer Studies but not Conversion therapy? The case for including conversion therapy would surely be about as strong. Skoojal (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. At another time such a discussion would work but since we've gone through a lot of discussion on very similar lines, (If A and B is there then so should C), let's try just one at a time so we can keep things more productive. I think having a discussion about scope would be helpful but until that occurs maybe just start a new thread proposing conversion therapy if you wish to do so. Banjeboi 07:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're going to take that view, then I'm shifting my position to opposed, although it's a weak opposed, not a strong opposed. I doubt that Queer Studies has much to do with research into sexual orientation per se - it's more about gay culture. I'll still support this version of the template even if Queer Studies is included, however. Skoojal (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The view I'm taking is that we have wound up a lot of energy by bundling and contrasting article A verses article B. I think it's more constructive to include or not include something based on the article itself. Before I rewrote non-heterosexual I wouldn't have wanted it included but now it's a much better and clearer article so its inclusion works. If all the articles were in better condition, IMHO, we'd have an easier time sorting which ones should obviously be included or not. Banjeboi 08:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. look, I think we need to keep in mind that this is a template. it needs to do (at least) the following things

1. provide links to articles that discuss prominent and accepted of aspects of sexual orientation
2. provide links to articles that discuss prominent and accepted academic work on sexual orientation
3. provide links to articles that discuss prominent and accepted social and political positions on sexual orientation
4. provide links to articles that discuss issues that are normally associated with sexual orientation

'Queer Studies' probably belongs in the second point, just because a lot of the work on sexual orientation would have fallen in that category. 'Conversion Therapy' might fall under the third point, if it's significant enough, but I tend to see it as just one bit of a broader discussion about the moral nature of homosexuality (i.e., the greater argument is that homosexuality is primarily mental and morally questionable, and ConvTher is a tool that works within that paradigm). we should paint in broad strokes on templates - are there any articles about the debate over what homosexuality is that might be used instead of the specific conversion therapy reference? --Ludwigs2 01:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually conversion therapy would fall under all of those categories, except for number 1. Skoojal (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The moral nature of homosexuality is not even discussed very much on the conversion therapy page. It discusses (1) prominent and accepted aspects of whether sexual orientation can be changed. (2) Academic work on the methods used in the past and present, as well as studies on the rates of harm and successful change of sexual orientation. (3) Political debate surrounding whether to deny people the right to seek to change sexual orientation. (4) Positions of various gay activist groups and religious organizations. I think conversion therapy is at the heart of sexual orientation because it delves into what exactly sexual orientation is and what people think about it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

interesting... part of the problem here is that the conversion therapy page isn't really about 'conversion therapy'. it's a well-written but badly named article that covers a range of issues around societal responses to homosexuality. I wouldn't mind linking that article, but I'm put off by the name. could we link it to the the subsection Conversion_therapy#Malleability_of_sexual_orientation, and call it 'malleability of orientation'?. honestly, I think that 'conversion therapy' should be renamed and merged with the Heterosexual-homosexual continuum stub that CJ made (so that efforts to change orientation are put in context with the various efforts to understand orientation...). --Ludwigs2 21:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thank you all for proving my point that it might be more constructive to simply debate one article at a time instead. This is excellent discussion and I suggest that a new thread be started for each article someone thinks should be included. Banjeboi 11:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Done, article concerns have generally been addressed. -- Banjeboi 11:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a link to biology. I think we should also include environment. From what I have read, most medical associations believe sexual orientation comes from a combination of biology and environment. It would be POV to prefer one over the other. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposed for now. You re-created that article a day ago, let's give it a little time to see how it develops with other editors' input. Banjeboi 00:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Joshua's reasons for wanting to include it seem good enough to me. It could be a better article (left some comments about that on the talk page), but I don't see any reason for not including it. Skoojal (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Queerudite (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think innate bisexuality might be a good addition to the "Research" section. Banjeboi 02:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw this one. On second thought it needs a lot of work but may be a good candidate after a bit of sourcing and clean-up takes place. -- Banjeboi 11:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that under the "orientations" section of this template, the heterosexual-homosexual continuum should be clearly distinguished from the other orientations on the template. I would like to here other opinion [and hopefully with justification for why or why not they believe this addition should appear]. thanks = ¬], and the template to the right is an example of what i am talking about. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The hetero-homo article has a number of issues including a lack of citations and possibly original research. Additionally, the article appears to be simply a restatement of the definition of sexual orientation and the Kinsey scale, both of which already appear on the template and are in much better shape. Adding it to the template would be WP:UNDUE and would not add any new information that isn't contained in the articles that already appear on the template. Queerudite (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe it is original research, i recommend you read the references or maybe take a look on google, because it clearly isn't. And by way, the references of the actual sexual orientation article clearly states the same thing as the continuum, i recommend you read the references of the orientation article as well.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Oh wait, just took a peak at the article again, it has a reference from the American Phycological society, the same site used for the sexual orientation article, so i ask you remove your appeasement and reassess your opinion on the matter, because i have just made your statements a falsity.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Basically what Queerudite states, that article needs a lot of work. I'd feel more confident in an article about sexual orientation in general and research concerning such and we do seem to have those already. -- Banjeboi 10:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, adds no useful information that isn't in sexual orientation or Kinsey scale. --Alynna (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Sounds like a good idea.--StealthyVlad (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the "orientation" section is in clear violation with wikipedia policy involving the proper procedure and rights of assembling a list (Wikipedia:Lists).

Among a laundry lists of violations this template infringes by having a bialy selected list, i will state the most major and apparent violations bellow.

"Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list."

This biasly selected list by a group of users dominated with their own personal agendas to surpress and blind knowledge contradicts on of the primary and fundamental rules of listing.

"It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one."

Why is the current list so limited?, why do some users feel as though they have the right to violate this rule and force their ideologies on to the template? Once again this template is in clear violation of a neutral-point-view, one of the main arguments for having such a limited "pick-and-choice" list was "those terms are not popular or well known". This logic is no longer, and has never been, a valid argument, and it is appalling that it was used and prevailed as the major factor for decision making in such a sensitive and emotional article.

I have made it quite obvious that this version has no right, and shall not continue, to be in use, a newer, more neutral, version is required. The only morally right thing to do would be to add all orientations to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs)

Just to try to address the more apparent problems with this position. This is a template and not a list. We have included the most common orientations our readers would expect to see - no reason to include the neologism pomosexual - if that is what this is all about. -- Banjeboi 10:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that would be in clear violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively."

Your "most common" argument violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, so unless you have anything further to say, i will equally add other identities.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, CJ, WP:NPOV also states that there is no need to include the perspectives of tiny minority positions (this is to prevent articles from getting swamped with every possible viewpoint that was ever imagined). if this were an article then there might be room to make the kinds of additions you want to make, assuming that you can show that they are views held in reliable sources. on a template, however, we ned to stick to the bare bones of the issue, which means exactly what Banjeboi said - most common orientations our readers would expect to see. --Ludwigs2 20:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote that or i will take no regard.... and asexual, and especially pansexual are just as comparative to other orientations bieng denied access to this template. And btw, don't assert a that a template is somehow above the qualifications of a article, wikipedia policy does not change when you are editing a template, please don't make up your own policy to twist your personal theories onto people.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

--Ludwigs2 20:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed...."

Were not comparing views, so you are trying to falsely interoperate the clear text in-front of you, this is obviously not a comparison of the orientations. So if you, as well and Banjeboi, have nothing else to say, i will put this template back into compliance of wikipedia policy.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

finish reading, CJ, to the part that says and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. --Ludwigs2 20:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we are giving recognition to "pansexual" or "asexual" then we can clearly give the right to other views, they are clearly just as notable as, for example, zoosexuality, commonly referred to as bestiality. And btw, views are opinions, we are not discussing how the earth came about, we are talking about factual orientations. What i recommend is using this edit, were the "major views" are on the template and the others are clearly noted in a "see other" style of section.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, and we've been down this path several times now. Prior consensus was to leave these off until their prominence in academic environments raised them to a notable level. It would also help if the articles in question were greatly cleaned up. Pomosexual is very limited in use and appeal, it's a neologism by respected sexologists but it's new and not in broad use anymore than many other neologisms. There's plenty for a good article available but almost all of it traces back to their book which is a collection of essays bundled around a theme. Now if they, or someone started a Pomosexual conference, produced an art show or wrote a more research oriented book that would effectively double the notability of the term. But that really hasn't seemed to happen as of yet. I note that pomosexual and many other identities have crept onto other template(s) and that's generally OK as they already were rather laundry-list-ish. -- Banjeboi 02:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse but did i ever once mention "pomosexual" at all in this discussion?, no. It appears to me that you truly do have a underlying agenda, and i am appalled you are continuing to force your viewd onto people. The only thing i ever proposed was using this edit which clarified a "see here for further reading" mention in the template. And i am obviously trying to get consensus but if you don't plan on proposing anything to fix this clear violation of wikipedia policy then we will be forced to use my idea. If their is only 1 proposed fixture, mine, and no others that obviously you are going to have to deal with my edit if you don't plan on endorsing another proposed change. It has already been proven that the template is in clear violation of wikipedia policy by picking and choosing what can and can't go on the template, I have clearly proven that your "most common" assertion is a very apparent violation to the policy, so you can either (a)deal with my edit or (b)propose your own edit.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. Disagree completely with your assessment of this. My agenda remains improving articles, that has never wavered. If pomosexual was as prominent and as widely accepted/used/cited as the others then I would have no issue including it. It isn't. And I mention it as you have repeatedly tried to inject it on this template and elsewhere along with a few others including one article which was deleted altogether. I also disagree with your assessment that the template is in violation of policy - if you feel that we are then you might ask on an admin board if your take on the situation is indeed correct. If you simply must have a counter proposal - the obvious one is that we don't make the change you propose. This aligns with previous consensus and what seems to be the consensus here presently. -- Banjeboi 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CJ, you're going about this the wrong way. obviously you have strong feelings on this issue, but accusing other editors of having some unspecified 'agenda' is bad form. maybe if you gave us some idea about (a) why this issue is so important to you, and (b) what your larger goal is in making this kind of edit, we can work out some kind of compromise. the fact is, though, that I (and I think Banjeboi) have been opposed to these changes because some are rather contentious and none are well-sourced. I don't want to add content to a template that blurs commonly-made distinctions, particularly not on an issue that is a personal and sensitive as sexual orientation. If you want to make an argument, please explain to us why it's important to you to have this (using reliable sources to back up your assertions). but please don't make the argument that your changes should be included because any opposition is invalid. that leads nowhere except to bad feelings. --Ludwigs2 03:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys even reading what i type?, Bangiboi keeps going on about pomosexual when i have never once mentioned it. The only thing i have been saying, and will say again is to use this edit which clearly makes it noticeable to "see the list section for more orientation labels". I will settle for that so we can have the template be in compliance with NPOV. And btw, how is pomosexual, now that you bring it up, "not well sourced", it has news articles and written books just like any other article.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading what you type, yes, and I'm remembering our previous discussions as well. You've consistently wanted to expand the template to include all sorts of things that are not commonly and conventionally considered orientations. this latest addition is simply another avenue to that end (essentially adding everything in the 'see also' section as though each were generally considered a sexual orientation). at best the added line is redundant; at worst it's misleading, and in either case it's unnecessary. Sexual orientation is reasonably well-defined in the literature; let's try not to muddy the waters.

with respect to 'pomosexual': that word is a lifestyle word, like 'metrosexual', not an orientation term. mainly it's a label for people who dislike being labeled. it's also a neologism that may have some play in the media, but has no real foothold in people's lives or in academia. if I spent the afternoon walking down the street and asking people, I could easily find a few hundred straights and a few dozen gays, a handful of Bis and (maybe) an asexual or two, but I could do that for weeks without finding a single person who identifies as pomosexual. --Ludwigs2 21:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well i guess we won't see eye-to-eye so i made a new template, Template:Sexual orientation labels, identity, and referenda. The name makes it rather clear, the template deals with what people label themselves, regardless of what is "more common", "traditional", or whatever the qualifications for this template that clearly only picks what you believe can fit. So know we will have two templates that have to do with two very separate topics, this one which i thought i knew what it was for [but i guess i don't], and a template that deals with "Sexual orientation labels, identity, and referenda".--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked that template for deletion as a content fork. you can read about those here: Wikipedia:Content forking. I'd also suggest you read this: Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing. --Ludwigs2 04:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously this is not "content forking" or the criteria for an orientation to fit on Template:Sexual orientation labels, identity, and referenda would be the exact same as getting on this template. Template:Sexual orientation labels, identity, and referenda has to to with Sexual orientation labels, identity, and referenda, this template has to do with "most common orientations" not at "equal footing" [1], stating that they are "original research" [2] and many other attempts to try and bar out labels you don't feel suite. You already know what you said but if you want feel free to go back and look through the archives.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add a see also section?--cooljuno411 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• agree, i think it is needed--cooljuno411 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we add a see also section, should we add Perceived sexual orientation to the see also section?--cooljuno411 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• agree, sounds like it would make a great fit. The article needs some exposure to be expanded.--cooljuno411 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]