Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Societal attitudes towards homosexuality

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Angr/talk 09:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Societal attitudes towards homosexuality

"Delete for Propaganda/Advocacy" Lou franklin 04:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" article should be removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT has a list of "what Wikipedia is not". The page says that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and asks that we leave "opinions on current affairs" out of Wikipedia. It says that Wikipedia articles should not be "propaganda or advocacy". Wikipedia says that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view. This article is clearly in violation of all of those standards.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a place for facts - not editorials. Does this statement belong in an encyclopedia: "In most developed countries, same-sex relationships are accepted"? Is that a fact that belongs in an encyclopedia or is that propaganda/advocacy?

How about this statement: "In some cultures influenced by anti-gay religious dogma, homosexuality is still considered unnatural". Is the reason that some cultures consider homosexuality unnatural really because they are "influenced by anti-gay religious dogma"? Is that fact or an opinion?

How about this "fact": "Violence against homosexuals remains common". Since no definition of "common" was given, is that a factual statement or is it spin?

The article references the "LGBT civil rights movement". But "civil rights" are personal rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, e.g., freedom of speech, press. Are homosexual rights spelled out in the Constitution? Then can there really be a "LGBT civil rights movement"? Or was that term crafted to associate gay rights with the rights of racial minorities?

Consider this statement: "Studies by Dr. Carole Jenny, Dr. A.W. Richard Sipe, and others have not found evidence that homosexuals are more likely to molest childen than heterosexuals." I am unclear of how that relates to the topic of "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" in the first place. Is the purpose of this article to discuss what the "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" ARE, or to discuss what they SHOULD BE? In any case, the link that the author provided says that "no large-scale national research has been done" and admits that the information is from "small studies".

We can debate whether "homosexuals are more likely to molest childen than heterosexuals" until the cows come home. Links can be found that make the case for either side of that argument, so it is fertile territory for revert wars. The statement is not from a neutral point of view and is off-topic anyway.

The article is fundamentally biased from start to finish and should be removed.

Lou franklin 04:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve -- the article needs expansion and improvement, but is not inherently POV. Cleduc 04:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Adrian Lamo ·· 05:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep I question this nomination from a new user whose very first post was a vow to delete this article Ruby 07:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep possible speedy. Article is on a notable topic and appears in reasonable shape. Capitalistroadster 07:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. In general, the proper response to an article with biased content is to rewrite it, not to delete the article. I encourage the nominator to work with other editors to attain NPOV on this article. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 08:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. --Terence Ong 08:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per AdelaMa. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}08:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Article is generally sympathetic to modern liberal homosexual rights agenda, but is encyclopedic and reasonably NPOV already. The nomination, however, is blatantly abusively POV. This is not what AFD is for. POV balance here would be a fair and reasonable section in the article presenting the differing opinion. Deleting it is homophobia running rampant. Georgewilliamherbert 09:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a good start for a useful and significant topic. It could use some editing per the nominator, but we don't delete just because an article needs to be cleaned up. Logophile 11:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Per Georgewilliamherbert. Chairman S. 11:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What you have here is a small yet vocal militant group using Wikipedia to get their agenda out.

Wikipedia was a cool idea, but people won't continue to use it once they discover overtly biased articles like this one. (Did you know that "many religious establishments" accord homosexuals "special status as possessing enhanced spiritual abilities"?)

The public is growing more skeptical already. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm

The process of correcting articles is fundamentally flawed because not only don't many "editors" attempt to be impartial and objective, but the very reason they are here is to push their agenda. Somebody made the comment that "the proper response to an article with biased content is to rewrite it, not to delete the article". Yet when I made corrections they were simply overridden. The net effect is that the article cannot be corrected and it cannot be removed.

No encyclopedia in the country would print the propaganda contained in this article. Ultimately, the public will stop using Wikipedia because the authors are allowed to disregard facts and promote their agendas. And, no, deleting this article would not be "homophobia running rampant"; it would be fairness running rampant.

Lou franklin 12:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

So you are nominating it for deletion because your version keeps getting edited? That merely reinforces my impression that this was a bad faith nomination from the gitgo. Ruby 13:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's my experience that small yet vocal militant groups tend to show up on AfD when their articles get tagged. So far though, all we've got is you. While I can understand your perspective, I'm unconvinced. Systemic bias is argued both ways with some regularity, and frankly, I doubt this article is going to be the death of Wikipedia.

Adrian Lamo ·· 20:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Yes, many cultures do consider individuals with uncommon gender characteristics to have exceptional spiritual powers and abilities. The article may need work, as most do, but throwing it in the dustbin is not the way to proceed. Haiduc 12:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, topic is encyclopaedic and any possible NPOV problems/statements needing citations should be addressed by editing the article, not deleting it. -- Mithent 13:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV problems/statements needing citations WERE addressed by editing the article, but the edits were overwritten repeatedly. Those who use Wikipedia to promote their own agenda are making very sure that correcting the article by means of editing it will not work. Lou franklin 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Lou, your most recent edit was to mutilate a paragraph which cited a peer reviewed scientific study which showed that homosexuals are less likely to molest children, and before it add a statement that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, and a link to a strongly POV opinion / political action site with an unscientific, un-peer-reviewed opinion web page arguing the latter.

[history]

This is evidence of bad faith and POV editing on your part, not evidence of bad faith reversions on others part. Georgewilliamherbert 20:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The link to your so-called "peer reviewed scientific study" was actually a USA Today article that openly admits that "no large-scale national research has been done" and describes the studies you cited as "small". That USA Today article also mentions a study that concluded "that gay men are three times more likely than heterosexuals to have sex with minors". That was mentioned in the very same article, yet that study mysteriously never made it to the text of the Wikipedia article. I am at a loss to understand how my link was "evidence of bad faith and POV editing" while yours was not.

Dr. Frederick Berlin, the researcher that you mentioned in the Wikipedia article, said in the very article that you linked to that "no scientifically conclusive research exists that would answer questions about pedophiles' sexual orientation". That information comes directly from the link posted, but somehow was never mentioned in the text of the Wikipedia article.

The information included in the Wikipedia article has been carefully selected. Parts that further your agenda are included; Parts that do not are excluded because they are "bad faith reversions".

Whether "homosexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals" is moot since it doesn't relate to the topic, and there are no conclusive studies anyway. I can modify the article and site literally hundreds of links that take one position. Then you can site a hundred links with the opposing opinion. Your sites will be no more valid than mine. But is that really necessary? Since it has absolutely no bearing on the topic of "societal attitudes towards homosexuality" in the first place, it shouldn't be a matter of debate. It should be removed.

No encyclopedia in the country would print that article. It should be removed. Lou franklin 23:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You are free to both your opinions about the topic in question and about the article. However, your opinions clearly differ from consensus agreement about what fair neutral POV is, and whether this article has it or not. This is not the article's problem. The article clearly has enough support to defeat this AFD nomination. Georgewilliamherbert 23:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

homosexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. On the contrary. There is solid research that completely blows this nonsense out of the water and burns the ashes. An objective article can be written here; saying there's no legitimate information is simply nonsense. --DanielCD 05:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You are a bright person. You realize that declaring which mental health organizations are "mainstream" involves a good deal of speculation. You know that saying "all mainstream Western health and mental health professional organizations have concluded this therapy is ineffective" is not a true statement. Our opinions about "what fair neutral POV is" do NOT differ. If they did then you would be able to defend those statements as factual. What differs is that I believe that a "fair neutral POV" is important. Lou franklin 01:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Trying to delete this article is not going to work. Instead, try editing the article yourself with relevant information, and discuss any changes on its talk page. Grandmasterka 12:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I did "try editing the article". My changes were overwritten. I changed them back, and they were overwritten again. Editing the article doesn't work when you have extremists who are hellbent on getting their message out. They just keep reverting it back.

I did "discuss any changes on the talk page". I was told that I was wasting space and wasting my time. Lou franklin 15:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's an important topic and should not be deleted just because Mr. frankin doesn't like the subject matter. Thumbelina 17:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per others. Arbustoo 01:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Can't delete subjects you don't like. Crumbsucker 18:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per others. Carlossuarez46 22:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- The article is obviously an opinion piece as many of the "facts" presented have counterpoints which are not presented. Paolo Belzoni 10:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

...then those counterpoints should be presented, as opposed to deleting the article. Since you know what they are, why not contribute them? Cleduc 15:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The main reason the Joe Franklin's edits kept getting reverted was that, instead of simply posting counterpoints, he deleted what was there and replaced it with his own point. This did nothing to make the article more NPOV, it just shifted the POV to the other side. --Chesaguy 16:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect.

Somebody posted an incorrect definition of homosexuality and I removed it. I provided the link to the dictionary definition on the discussion page. There's nothing wrong with that. Redefining words to your liking may help you to sell your agenda, but it isn't right and it certainly isn't encyclopedic.

The information that I added to the article was correct, and it was removed several times.

I also removed this text: "the association of child sexual abuse and pedophilia with homosexuality is considered by many to be a form of homophobia and prejudice, and has been studied as a form of moral panic based on a neurotic repressed discourse of child sexuality". Exactly what type of counterpoint could one give to such biased drivel? You might as well surround that sentence with the words "warning: this is propaganda". It shouldn't have had to be removed because it shouldn't have been there in the first place.

This text was also removed: "damage from natural disasters in the modern United States is not correlated well with homosexual population, but it does correlate with Protestantism". There is no way to correct that by "posting counterpoints". It is pure hogwash. The article is rubbish and is filled with disinformation from start to finish. It is beyond repair and should be removed. Lou franklin 02:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is a fairly accurate description of the events. The definition of homosexuality was not incorrect simply because it discussed adult orientation rather than restricting the definition to the gender of sexual partners. To claim that male pedophiles who molest boys are homosexual is misleading whether or not it is technically true that their actions are homogenital in nature. The information you added was not correct. It was a grossly misleading statement using, as its only source, a site that based its conclusions on disingenuous distortions of statistics. Rather than add that some (your source) disagree with the distinction between same-gender molestation and adult sexual relations, you deleted everything about the distinction and simply added "Homosexuals are, per capita, more likely to be child molesters" or something very much to that effect. The question to ask is, "Does being sexually and romantically attracted to adults of one's own gender make one more likely to molest children." The logic you present works backwards from same-gender molestation to paint adult sexuality with the same brush saying, in effect, that there is no difference between an adult male being attracted to another adult male and an adult male being attracted to a male child. Would you equate an adult male being attracted to an adult female to an adult male being attracted to a female child since the gender is the same?

Using the word "homosexuality" to describe adult sexuality as opposed to same-gender child molestation is not redefining the word.

As for the whole article being rubbish and in need of removal, it seems the consensus disagrees with you. --Chesaguy 03:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article defined "homosexuals" as "those attracted to same-sex adults". But take a look at the actual definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homosexual . Do you see the word "adults"?

We can debate many things, but we cannot debate the meaning of words. I fail to see how correcting phony word definitions does "nothing to make the article more NPOV" or "just shifts the POV to the other side". The word means what it means.

"As for the whole article being rubbish and in need of removal, it seems the consensus disagrees with you."

Those are two unrelated statements. Both are true. The article is rubbish, and the consensus disagrees with me.

But let's talk about this "consensus". In looking at the user pages of the people who voted to keep the article, I see things like "This user is interested in LGBT issues" (on several user pages), "LGBT Wikipedians", "This user supports equal rights for queer people" (multiple times), "I am... Gay... A recovered Catholic... A liberal democrat", "This user identifies as gay", "This user is a sheep herder on Brokeback Mountain".

Is this "consensus" solely concerned with the accuracy of Wikipedia, or might they have another agenda? Lou franklin 08:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, consensus members are heterosexual, married for over 14 years, and disgusted and repulsed by the implication that only gays or lesbians would be interested in neutral points of view in GLBT Wikipedia articles. That was a despicable accusation to make, Mr Franklin, in addition to being incorrect. You should be ashamed of yourself. Not to mention, it's at least a borderline personal attack, which will get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert 09:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The only one I see making personal attacks here is you. Most of the people who voted to keep the article are gay. It's not a "despicable accusation", it's a fact. They list it right on their user pages.

You tell me then, why would people who are so "interested in neutral points of view" be offended by using the dictionary definition of "homosexual" rather than being allowed to twist the definition to suit their cause?

I am one of very few people here "interested in neutral points of view". That is the entire issue. Lou franklin 13:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per others. --Chesaguy 18:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It may need some NPOV cleanup but it shouldn't be deleted. Rhobite 23:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per others, increasingly looks like a WP:POINT nomination. --Malthusian (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons already stated. Edgar181 13:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since no good argument for deletion has been advanced (Lou's arguments sure don't meet that description.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid grounds for deletion given. --Carnildo 22:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Society does have attitudes towards homosexuality. These attitudes are studied, debated, surveyed and documented. So this article describes a legitimate topic and is clearly not an AfD candidate. The information in the article does appear to indicate societal support of homosexuality, but this simply reflects reality. There is a clear, documented trend in society of advancing support for homosexuality. Wikipedia does not address the right-ness or wrong-ness of such things. The nom obviously does not support homosexuality, but if the nom disagrees that such support is advancing, he is should offer well-referenced evidence to the contrary. (Good luck on that one.) -Gavin 03:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"The information in the article does appear to indicate societal support of homosexuality, but this simply reflects reality."

Really? Let me offer some "well-referenced evidence to the contrary".

The Wikipedia article says that "38% of the general public think that 'homosexual behavior' is wrong". But take a look at the information in the link cited. The percent of the general public who agree that homosexual behavior is morally wrong is broken down this way:

Completely Agree: 38%

Somewhat Agree: 13%

Somewhat Disagree: 16%

Completely Disagree: 26%

So it isn't accurate to say that "38% of the general public think that 'homosexual behavior' is wrong". The correct percentage is 51% (38% + 13%).

Don't you find it just a little dishonest to report it as 38%?

"The nom" is indifferent to homosexuality, it is the lying that he doesn't support. Lou franklin 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep But take a hard look at it to be sure no funny-business is going on. This stuff needs to be NPOV, and can't read like an apology piece. If it can't be kept neutral, then some mediation will be called for. --DanielCD 05:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Lou franklin, there's obviously some legitimacy to your concern, but this isn't the way to address it. You can't just delete aspects of the world you don't like, you have to deal with them. However, regarding the factual errors, they do need to be addressed, but again, not in this manner.

Also: this article was started in 2003. WTF were you thinking? If it truly merited deletion, don't you think someone would have caught it before now? --DanielCD 05:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, to be fair, I nominated Ethnic Conflict in India which had been around since 2002, and it got deleted. It was always mediocre and unnecessary from start to finish. Grandmasterka 06:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Fix any problem but don't delete it FloNight 05:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Lou franklin, I recognize your concerns, but I agree with other editors -- you can't simply remove statements that you dislike when they are supported by empirical evidence. Furthermore, it seems that you nominated this article for deletion simply out of frustration that your edits were not accepted -- if it doesn't agree with your viewpoint, it must be "spin" and doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. This is vindictive, and does not contribute to a harmonious, constructive community. Please recognize that other viewpoints exist, and other people's opinions are just as valid as yours. I truly hope that a consensus can be reached with the article. I strongly disagree with your apparent views on homosexuality, but I do think that those views are, for better or for worse, a part of societal attitudes toward homosexuality and should be represented in the article alongside other views. Hbackman 05:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.