Talk:Homosexuality: Difference between revisions
→The 'gay genes' table: Oops fix. |
→The 'gay genes' table: Collapsed? |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
:::::: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have implemented [[User:Sxologist|Sxologist]]'s suggestion of a collapsed table. I think the prose should also be updated to better reflect both "genes ≠ biology" and the complex nature of traits such as sexual orientation. I think keeping the table is important as it does show there is a genetic component - and also the number of related genes is some indication of the polygenic nature of sexuality. Readers looking into the biology of sexual orientation can use it as a springboard for further research. Hope this helps. [[User:ArcMachaon|ArcMachaon]] ([[User talk:ArcMachaon|talk]]) 20:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC) |
:::::: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have implemented [[User:Sxologist|Sxologist]]'s suggestion of a collapsed table. I think the prose should also be updated to better reflect both "genes ≠ biology" and the complex nature of traits such as sexual orientation. I think keeping the table is important as it does show there is a genetic component - and also the number of related genes is some indication of the polygenic nature of sexuality. Readers looking into the biology of sexual orientation can use it as a springboard for further research. Hope this helps. [[User:ArcMachaon|ArcMachaon]] ([[User talk:ArcMachaon|talk]]) 20:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::: Collaps'''ible''' as originally proposed is fine. Default collaps'''ed''' is not. Adjusted the template to permit collapse. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 23:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC) |
::::::: Collaps'''ible''' as originally proposed is fine. Default collaps'''ed''' is not. Adjusted the template to permit collapse. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 23:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Mathglot, what's wrong with default collapsed? I certainly think it would be appropriate if there were a border on it, rather than just a heading which is confusing. [[User:Sxologist|Sxologist]] ([[User talk:Sxologist|talk]]) 04:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:20, 8 November 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homosexuality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Homosexuality. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Homosexuality at the Reference desk. |
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tranhtruong (article contribs).
We should add this picture in page.
Peacetowikied (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Peacetowikied:, There are better (more representative/illustrative) images in the article already. --Equivamp - talk 22:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Are you homophobic? Why people should not know how proud gays looks a like?? Peacetowikied (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- User:Peacetowikied, please remember that editors should assume good faith and not cast aspersions on other editors without reason. No, I am not homophobic, and there is no reason to assume that my disagreement is due to some veiled bigotry, especially when I have already informed you of my actual reasoning. To answer your second question, this article is not about Gay pride, but you will notice that the images on that article are of pride events and one historical location important to the idea. The connection to the topic is much clearer and says more to a viewer unfamiliar with the topic than a wide shot of a man standing stiffly in front of a chair, the only visible connection to homosexuality being a rainbow flag on a chair behind him, which viewers unfamiliar with the subject might not even recognize. This would be a poor image to illustrate the subject of gay pride, and an even worse one to illustrate the concept of homosexuality generally. --Equivamp - talk 09:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Are you homophobic? Why people should not know how proud gays looks a like?? Peacetowikied (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I had to revert your edit Peacetowikied. I have nothing against the image but it does not add anything to the article. As the image is of yourself, you may not be adding it from a neutral point of view.
AussieWikiDan (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes but this page lacks modern pictures.Peacetowikied (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- You're going to have to be more specific than that. What issues are there with the current pictures? In any case, we won't be using this picture. It's just a guy standing in his underwear. It doesn't help explain anything to the reader. — Tartan357 (Talk) 07:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Peacetowikied was indef blocked for disrputive editing. --Equivamp - talk 13:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Peacetowikied was almost certainly trolling/sealioning you, Equivamp. Sxologist (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Peacetowikied was indef blocked for disrputive editing. --Equivamp - talk 13:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- You're going to have to be more specific than that. What issues are there with the current pictures? In any case, we won't be using this picture. It's just a guy standing in his underwear. It doesn't help explain anything to the reader. — Tartan357 (Talk) 07:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes but this page lacks modern pictures.Peacetowikied (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
An edit?
“Since the end of the 19th century, there has been a global movement towards freedom and equality for gay people, including the introduction of anti-bullying legislation to protect gay children at school, legislation ensuring non-discrimination, equal ability to serve in the military, equal access to health care, equal ability to adopt and parent, and the establishment of marriage equality.“
Is “end of the 19th century“ correct? Perhaps 20th century (that is 1900’s not 1800’s) would be better? Kloyarn (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes I agree, from the examples given these would all be the late 20th century. I think it’s a mistake. AussieWikiDan (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have corrected this. It almost certainly should be 20th century. Sxologist (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Change efforts -> Psychology?
I wonder about the inclusion of the "Sexual orientation change efforts" subheading under the Causes section. Should it be shifted under the Psychology heading (since it has little to do with cause)? Some of this article could do with some good consolidation. Sxologist (talk) _Psychology?" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">10:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's not the best organized article ever. Either way works fine for me. Crossroads -talk- 15:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The 'gay genes' table
I would propose that either the 'gay genes' table is removed or made collapsible. While homosexuality has a moderate genetic component as evidenced by twin studies, it has been known for a while that traits are polygenic and thus informed by many thousands of genes interacting. As written here by Rice et al. in 2017 "Collectively, GWAS thus indicate that there are no major genes contributing to male homosexuality". Ideas about 'the gay gene' or even gay genes are an unfortunate product of media and science by press release. Any thoughts? Sxologist (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Second comment, it would still be useful to include the major findings and specific genes found in GWAS and molecular studies in the text body. However the table itself is pretty distracting and annoying on mobile? Maybe that's just me. But the 'gay genes' thing gives people the false idea that something must be genetic to have biological origins. Sxologist (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see that it necessarily gives that idea, but it could perhaps be replaced by not-overly-long prose that goes over the latest understanding of the same matter based on secondary sources. There's more at biology and sexual orientation, but much of it seems to be written in a fashion where it accumulated info from each study as it came out. Crossroads -talk- 15:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah perhaps just shortened to a prose. Or a collapsable table. I will have to see. It could be reasonably to bring back the 'gay genes' article and put it there, but have it explain the polygenic nature of the trait. Just a suggestion; I see a lot of searches on google relate to gay genes rather than biology etc. Sxologist (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- The genes table was briefly discussed: Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 24#Epigenetics/"gay gene" material. I don't see that we need the table. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, I have asked the creator if they would consider making it into a collapsed table. Sxologist (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have implemented Sxologist's suggestion of a collapsed table. I think the prose should also be updated to better reflect both "genes ≠ biology" and the complex nature of traits such as sexual orientation. I think keeping the table is important as it does show there is a genetic component - and also the number of related genes is some indication of the polygenic nature of sexuality. Readers looking into the biology of sexual orientation can use it as a springboard for further research. Hope this helps. ArcMachaon (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Collapsible as originally proposed is fine. Default collapsed is not. Adjusted the template to permit collapse. Mathglot (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Mathglot, what's wrong with default collapsed? I certainly think it would be appropriate if there were a border on it, rather than just a heading which is confusing. Sxologist (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Collapsible as originally proposed is fine. Default collapsed is not. Adjusted the template to permit collapse. Mathglot (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have implemented Sxologist's suggestion of a collapsed table. I think the prose should also be updated to better reflect both "genes ≠ biology" and the complex nature of traits such as sexual orientation. I think keeping the table is important as it does show there is a genetic component - and also the number of related genes is some indication of the polygenic nature of sexuality. Readers looking into the biology of sexual orientation can use it as a springboard for further research. Hope this helps. ArcMachaon (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, I have asked the creator if they would consider making it into a collapsed table. Sxologist (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- The genes table was briefly discussed: Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 24#Epigenetics/"gay gene" material. I don't see that we need the table. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah perhaps just shortened to a prose. Or a collapsable table. I will have to see. It could be reasonably to bring back the 'gay genes' article and put it there, but have it explain the polygenic nature of the trait. Just a suggestion; I see a lot of searches on google relate to gay genes rather than biology etc. Sxologist (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see that it necessarily gives that idea, but it could perhaps be replaced by not-overly-long prose that goes over the latest understanding of the same matter based on secondary sources. There's more at biology and sexual orientation, but much of it seems to be written in a fashion where it accumulated info from each study as it came out. Crossroads -talk- 15:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class LGBT articles
- WikiProject LGBT studies articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class ethics articles
- Mid-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles
- B-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- High-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class psychology articles
- High-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- Etymology Task Force etymologies