Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Societal attitudes towards homosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This mediation is now closed. —Guanaco 05:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Communication 2 What is the dispute? 2.1 Sources on homosexuality and pedophilia 2.2 Violence against homosexuals 2.3 Anti-nationalism and homosexuality 2.4 AIDS and homosexuality

[edit] Communication

We will keep this mediation on the wiki. —Guanaco 20:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the dispute?

Please add each new issue about the article to its own section. —Guanaco 20:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Issues to be mediated" section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality lists four issues.

The first one is being addressed. The other three have not been addressed. It's fine if you want to work through the list sequentially, but I don't want to lose site of the points that were removed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_mediation%2FSocietal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality&diff=40350855&oldid=40348304 . This addresses the root of the problem. Lou franklin 04:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As Guanaco mentioned, this mediation isn't about judging people's conduct or reprimanding "extremists". The goal of this mediation is to come up with a version of the article that is suitable for all parties.

Since you have repeatedly called other users extremists and speculated about their sexual preferences, I am withdrawing from this mediation, as I promised I would do. Wikipedia:Civility is important everywhere on Wikipedia, but it is essential here. Good luck, guys. Rhobite 04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The goals of this mediation are listed in the "issues to be mediated" section. That's what "issues to be mediated" means. Lou franklin 04:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Those are your interpretation of the issues you feel are "to be mediated". This is not a court of law, I am not a judge, and I definitely cannot force anyone to stop being gay, to change their opinion, or to stop editing this article. If you are looking for such a process, try Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. This is about the article, not any of its editors. If you continue to be uncivil and make accusatory statements, I will be forced to close this mediation. —Guanaco 05:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I never asked anybody to "stop being gay" or to change their opinion, and I certainly have done nothing to be uncivil. But obviously cleaning up the article won't mean much if the forces that allowed the article to require cleanup are not addressed.

Are you really saying that Wikipedia will not even attempt to stop an extremist group of Klansmen, Moonies, or Nazis from spreading propeganda as long as there are enough members of the group?

What is the point of mediating and then handing the keys over to the same group that poluted the article in the first place? Lou franklin 05:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources on homosexuality and pedophilia

Lou wants to add the following text:

Many studies have shown that homosexuals are considerably more apt to involve themselves sexually with the underage. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

What are the objections to these sources? —Guanaco 20:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

One objection is that only one of these links (the NARTH one) could be considered a link to a study. They are links to articles that are interpreting studies, often the same few studies. Five cites refering back to the same study do not constitute many studies.

I also feel, that if studies that have been debunked by nation-wide professional organizations (the APA) are included, they should not be included without mentioning that they have been refuted. --Chesaguy 21:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My objection (and I think Seth agrees with me) is that Lou is presenting these sources as if they're objective scientific references, but their opposition to homosexuality is based on religion, not research. For instance, Lou is trying to reference the Family Research Institute, an anti-Gay group headed by Paul Cameron, whose methods and conclusions have been denounced by the scientific community. The AFA bases their opinion on their interpretation of Christianity, and handpicks the research which supports their conclusion; NARTH believes that people can be cured of homosexuality, a view which has been denounced by the APA.

I think it's fine to present the conservative Christian view in the article, but the article shouldn't imply that mainstream research supports this view. Rhobite 21:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The topic is "societal attitudes". It doesn't matter if the attitudes are "based on religion", "objective scientific references", "research", or anything else. Lou franklin 21:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lou, if your citations were being used to reflect "societal attitudes" rather than claiming to be fact, it would be better phrased, "Some groups believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children" (then cite your sources showing who holds these beliefs). Instead, you stated, "Many studies have shown that homosexuals are considerably more apt to involve themselves sexually with the underage." This is not a statement of an attitude, but a claim to fact. Therefore, the objective reliability of these sources is, in fact, an issue. One could cite Fred Phelps to show that he believes that God hates gay people, but not to support a contention that He actually does hate gay people. --Chesaguy 23:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Much of the article should be removed solely on the basis that it doesn't relate to the topic of "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality". Whether "homosexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals" at all isn't relevant. The topic is "societal attitudes".

But if we ARE going to veer off course (and it seems that we are), then both sides must be presented. Lou franklin 23:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

But the attitude that some in society hold that gay people are more likely to molest children is very relevant to the topic. Societal attitudes towards homosexuality is very deeply affected if people believe that homosexuality makes one more likely to be a danger to children. Being relevant, it is encumbent on those who wish to perpetuate that attitude to show some objectively reliable source to back up that attitude so it can be ascertained whether that attitude is valid or not. Both sides must be presented accurately. If one side holds more objective weight (i.e., a psychological matter being agreed upon by a prestigious, national, peer-reviewed psychological association like the APA) as opposed to one group (NARTH) that holds a different opinion and has links to groups which might influence that opinion unscientifically (i.e., Conservative Religious groups). Then the disparity in objective, scientific value of those attitudes must be clearly represented. --Chesaguy 02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the APA is more "prestigious" than NARTH. Nor do I agree that they have more "objective weight". Lou franklin 03:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No need for the snarl quotes. Ask how many professional psychologists belong to APA and how many belong to NARTH. Which one do the majority of psychologists look to for guidance? What is your criteria for prestige and objective weight? Does the size of the consensus of professionals not matter to you if they all disagree with you? Name any measure of professional prestige and any measure objective weight and make a case for NARTH surpassing the APA in any of them. If you cannot do that, you are not measuring objective criteria, but how much a given organization agrees with you. --Chesaguy 03:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that the APA has changed its position on homosexuality, combined with the fact that NARTH cannot, no matter how much evidence it is confronted with, change its position while remaining what it is, suggests that the APA is more objective. -Seth Mahoney 03:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

How so? All the APA changing their position means is that they were wrong at least once. Would you have considered them "more prestigious" when they held the other position? It seems to me that "prestige" means only "how much you agree with them". Lou franklin 03:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Prestige means "widely recognized prominence, distinction, or importance", according to the dictionary at my desk. This would seem to accord to the definition given by Chesaguy, not "how much you agree with them". -Seth Mahoney 03:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And what proof do you have that the APA has more "widely recognized prominence"? Lou franklin 03:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we could dig up membership numbers, but it seems to be a little extreme a requirement to prove that the American Psychological Association is more prominent than a fringe psychological community. (Actually, number of APA members: 159,000 [12]). -Seth Mahoney 04:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

How about this from www.apa.org/about/ [13] "Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide." Unless you can prove they are lying, that sounds pretty prestigious to me. Do you have 150,000 professionals who disagree with them? --Chesaguy 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You are comparing apples with oranges. The APA deals with a wide variety of things. NARTH has a very small specialty. That doesn't mean that they are any less prestigious. Take a look at http://www.narth.com/ . The former president of the APA is pictured at a NARTH conference. Lou franklin 04:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. When they disagree on the same topic, it is all apples. NARTH is not a specialty, it is a group. If I were to discuss the APA's position on ADHD to NARTH's that would be invalid as NARTH does not deal with it. But NARTH dealing only with this one topic does not mean that they trump the 150,000 members of the APA when there is a disagreement; especially if it's a disagreement as to research methods. And a former APA president appearing at a NARTH conference is irrelevant unless he was there to officially state that the APA had changed their position and was now agreeing with NARTH. Now, play your cards on the table. We've made a case for the APA (whether or not you agree with it). Make your case for NARTH. --Chesaguy 04:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that "NARTH is not a specialty, it is a group". I said that NARTH _HAS_ a very small specialty. It is a group with a very small specialty.

I understand that "if I were to discuss the APA's position on ADHD to NARTH's that would be invalid as NARTH does not deal with it". That's why I said "the APA deals with a wide variety of things. NARTH has a very small specialty". You are saying the same thing that I said. But we are not discussing ADHD. The topic we are discussing, homosexuality, is NARTH's area of expertise.

Seth said that NARTH was "a fringe psychological community". The president of the APA attending NARTH conferences proves that is not so. Lou franklin 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is that we shouldn't mislead readers about the motives of these groups. It is fine if we want to note that conservative Christian groups believe homosexuals are more likely to molest children, as long as we also note that many people dispute their research. I also agree with Chesaguy, many of these links are redundant, and some are just anecdotal evidence. Rhobite 21:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How does saying "studies have shown" serve to mislead readers about the so-called 'motives' of these groups? Lou franklin 22:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

When I read "many studies", I picture repeatable research performed by objective scientists - I don't picture conservative Christians who select and misinterpret data which support their own beliefs. NARTH, for example, references Freund's study "Pedophilia and heterosexuality vs. homosexuality", J Sex Marital Ther. 1984 Fall;10(3):193-200. NARTH writes "While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual" [14], however the APA says that this is a misinterpretation of Freund's study: [15] Rhobite 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

One problem is that most of the collection of links refer to a study done by Paul Cameron, the 1983 ISIS Survey, which every mainstream psychological and sociological group has denounced as flawed, unfactual, or intentionally distorted. This doesn't necessarily mean that none of these links can be used, but that we need to be clear what we're talking about, and what we should be talking about if we're using these links is, I think, what certain groups have claimed. I would like to see sections added to the article about the AFA and NARTH, which are certainly representative of certain societal attitudes toward homosexuality, and these links would be appropriate there. They are not, however, appropriate in a sentence that seems to be making scientific or factual claims about homosexuals. -Seth Mahoney 22:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My recommendation for this is to keep the links to the original studies and remove the others. If the studies are flawed, this should be explained. —Guanaco 02:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Which original studies? Sorry, I lost track. -Chesaguy 02:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The ISIS survey? The closest thing to a study in the list of links given by Lou is to a pamphlet given out by the AFA, the last link. -Seth Mahoney 02:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that, if we're going to discuss this further in the same way we have been discussing it, we create three subsections: Prestige, Objectivity, and 1983 ISIS Survey to keep things straight, since this section is beginning to get a little messy. Any objections? I'm also wondering if anyone minds if I edit on some of the uncontested sections, and add additional sections to the "History in the West" section covering Anita Bryant et al and the AIDS crisis. -Seth Mahoney 04:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violence against homosexuals

For example, consider the statement "violence against homosexuals and gay bashing remains common; the experience of gays during the Holocaust is an egregious case." This is clearly hype. What is meant by "common"? Once per year? Once per minute? If I were going to write an encyclopedic article I would define what the heck I was talking about. And how is "the experience of gays during the Holocaust" an example of how "homosexuals and gay bashing remains common" today? This is pure spin. Assuming we knew what "common" meant, what would "gay bashing remains common" mean? What does the author even mean by "gay bashing" and how can he prove that it is "common"? Lou franklin 18:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the use of "common". It needs a reliable source and a statistic to be meaningful. Could someone provide one? —Guanaco 20:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The word "egregious" should also be replaced in this sentence, it's needlessly POV. As for the sentence, it needs to be attributed but it should stay. It is true that there is still a lot of violence and animosity towards LGBT people. Rhobite 21:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The article Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered, which is linked to in that sentence, contains statistics. -Seth Mahoney 22:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a {{main}} link to that section. Are there any problems with the sources cited on Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered? —Guanaco 02:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The statistics there were sourced to an article on gay.com. I updated the link to point to the hate crime report on FBI.gov - I'll doublecheck the numbers in a second the numbers appear to be the same. -Seth Mahoney 02:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-nationalism and homosexuality

Lou has objected to the sentence "This sort of rhetoric, drawing some connection between homosexuality and anti-nationalism, is fairly common, and was used in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia as well."

This could be explained in more detail and linked to reliable sources. —Guanaco 20:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that sources are needed here, although both History of gays in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust and Gay rights in Russia, which are linked to in that sentence, contain more information, and the preceeding paragraph makes, I think, more clear what is being talked about here:

In the 1950s in the United States, homosexuality was taboo. Senator Joseph McCarthy used accusations of homosexuality as a smear tactic in his anti-Communist crusade, often conflating the two.[18] On one occasion, he went so far as to announce to reporters, "If you want to be against McCarthy, boys, you've got to be either a Communist or a cocksucker." Historians such as Cuordileone have argued that, in homosexualizing Communism, McCarthy was playing off of prevalent anxieties about sexuality in order to gain support for his anti-Communist campaign. There were, however, other perceived connections between homosexuality and Communism. Kenneth Wherry, for example, publicized fears that Joseph Stalin had obtained a list of closeted homosexuals in positions of power from Adolph Hitler, which he believed Stalin intended to use to blackmail these men into working against the U.S. for the Soviet regime. [uncited] A more general, and perhaps less paranoid sounding version of this sentiment can be found in the 1950 report produced by a Senate committee headed by McCarthy titled "Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government" which states, in part, "As has been previously discussed in this report, the pervert is easy prey to the blackmailer... It is an accepted fact among intelligence agencies that espionage organizations the world over consider sex perverts who are in possession of or have access to confidential material to be prime targets where pressure can be exerted" [19]

As for the word 'rhetoric', that's what it is - we're not talking scientific studies or philosophical arguments. I don't think that it is POV to call something by its proper name. -Seth Mahoney 22:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS and homosexuality

Lou has pointed out some biased wording in Societal attitudes towards homosexuality#Blame for plagues and disasters. The sentence "Much more is also known about the source of the syndrome (HIV) and its means of transmission, which does tend to reduce finger-pointing," could probably be reworded and expanded to address this concern. —Guanaco 20:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. -Seth Mahoney 22:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)