Talk:Societal attitudes toward homosexuality/Archive 1

message: :". . . during several periods in European Christian history homosexuality was not repressed and was even celebrated, as with heterosexuality."
This appears to state that heterosexuality was celebrated in European Christianity.  Is this true?  I was under the impression that open human sexuality was and is a closed topic and not subject to celebration.  At the very least, I think author should provide examples of these periods.
Escheffel 15:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality celebrated in European Christianity?

message: :Presently in Western countries pre-pubescent males and older men are more likely to manifest anti-LGBT attitues.
OK, I know there are much more detailed statistics than that on all sorts of demographic axes, including relious affiliation and participation, ethnicity, age, etc.  Consider this a request to expand the article in this direction. -- Beland 23:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Men more likely to be anti-gay?

message: After reorganizing the article, I see that it is really need of general expansion, except perhaps for those sections which have external articles, which probably just need to be synced up. -- Beland 00:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs expansion, or merging?

message: Since no one really takes Fred Phelp's seriously, putting in stuff about Fred Phelp's makes this article really biased (as in, making gay bashers look really stupid).  --Secretwanderer 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove Fred Phelps references?

message: I'm confused as to why the word "only" is in that sentence. Peoplesunionpro 19:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Only 38% of the general public think that "homosexual behavior" is wrong." 

message: How do we end the revert war with the anonymous user who keeps reverting the Pedophilia section?  Any ideas? --Chesaguy 03:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lou, I think the point is that it is even more disingenuous to suggest that adults who are attracted to other adults of the same sex are more apt to molest children or, conversely that adults who molest children of their own gender are more likely to be attracted to adults of their own gender.  To obscure the difference between child molestation and sexual expression between adults in order to demonize adult (non-child-molesting) homosexual people is less honest than the semantic games you are trying to propigate.  -User:Chesaguy
If what you really want is to have this article removed, nominate it for deletion here: WP:AFD instead of wasting either the space here, or our time reverting your POV and pointedly biased edits.  -Seth Mahoney 03:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Anonymous Reverts 

message: Angr/talk 10:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD debate 

message: Does anyone know if Wikipedia has a stash of policies or guidelines regarding what qualifies as an appropriate source and what does not?  For some reason, I seem to remember there being something like that, with a list of sources known to make untrue claims.  Could have just been wishful thinking, though.  -Seth Mahoney 22:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but I've not seen a list of sources known to be dubious before. It would be an incredibly long list anyway. --Malthusian (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beautiful.  That's better than a list of unreliable sources, I think.  Thanks a lot.  -Seth Mahoney 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policies regarding appropriate sources

message: I'd like to throw two cents in on the article's overall direction.
This article is currently torn between a number of relatively liberal advocates, many of whom are gay, and Lou, who though he refuses to acknowledge the term is by all evidence an extremist homophobe by liberal standards.  This doesn't do much to help find a reasonable NPOV.
Pre-AFD this article was generally significantly gay rights biased and gave insufficient coverage to those opposed to homosexuality.  Regardless of where you personally fall on the belief spectrum, anti-gay political and personal attitudes are a major part of US society and should be at least accurately described here, hopefully in a neutral and non POV manner.
The changes since the AFD closed have fixed a few aggrevious things Lou was complaining about the article on WP and elsehwere.
Lou continues to want to make some more changes.  He is attempting to do so by presenting as fact a series of materials and statements from advocacy groups, inserted into other sections of the article.  In particular, the question of whether homosexuality is linked with pedophilia is a point he seems convinced is true and wants to drive home, despite a consensus (which I agree with completely) among others that the evidence is bunk.
The problem here is that there's currently no good place for descriptions of anti-gay groups and their beliefs to go.  The extreme examples Lou wants to use are not going to find a home in other subsections, as they're clearly not Neutral POV in those.  But it is fair and NPOV to state that there are people and groups who hold those beliefs.  It is in fact a major failing of the article not to present those viewpoints.
I think there needs to be a major section describing these opposition groups and their beliefs.  All the claims Lou wants to make regarding contentious claims by those groups are reasonable in that section... "The American Familiy Coalition believes that..." "Researchers with this institute have reported that...".  That those groups believe those things are neutral POV statements.
The flip side is that, once that's done, some of the other claims elsewhere in the article should be rewritten to mirror that, backing off from asserting the article current dominant liberal opinion as fact quite so much.
I (assuming good faith) trust Lou to accurately represent the beliefs and statements of the anti-homosexual groups.  I think that starting such a section now is an important next step.
Georgewilliamherbert 10:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a section could certainly begin at 7.8.  It would fit nicely under "History in the west", and right after "LGBT civil rights movement".  It could begin with, for example, the Anita Bryant crusade, and go from there.  I'm going to do a little restructuring in a minute, and we can decide how to fit in contemporary stuff after that.  But what does everyone think about starting a new history section for reactionary politics?  -Seth Mahoney 18:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, first set of changes made.  The article now has three major sections: The intro stuff, with the religion and whatnot, a section titled "Repressive reactions and rhetoric" which contains all the "gays caused the earthquake" nonsense, and the history section at the end, which I thought was a good idea because the other sections sort of lay the conceptual groundwork for the history section, and it is helpful to understand, for example, that people have seriously made the claim that gay people are responsible for natural disasters.  Now, I know that maybe "Repressive reactions and rhetoric" is maybe not the best title (but, hey, three "R"s!), but it is morning for me and its the best I could do.  It seems logical enough to me: These are attempts to repress homosexuality, to keep it from peeking out of the closet or whatever.  But, you know, change it if you want.  The idea wasn't to make the article pro-gay, but to visually link several sections that are conceptually related.  Which brings me to...  This would be a good section for many of the things the AFA and NARTH, etc. are doing and saying (since, maybe, they're too recent to go under history).  So here's what I propose: As above, a section covering reactionary movements such as Anita Bryant's, and maybe an additional section covering the AIDS crisis and the ways that has changed the picture; and an additional section under "Repressive reactions and rhetoric" (or whatever it ends up being called) detailing the claims of ultraconservative groups out there and what they're doing.  Sound good?  -Seth Mahoney 18:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yay!  So anyway, for those of you who are interested in improving this article, rather than converting it from one (perceived) opinion piece into another: Any ideas?  -Seth Mahoney 19:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of people Lou chose to mediate with is ... interesting ... As is the timing, given that there's now a good faith effort going on to bring in some fair neutral POV from "the other side".  Georgewilliamherbert 09:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly about the list of people do you find [dot dot dot] interesting?  Lou franklin 03:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lou's bias obscuring the article's lack of fair treatment of conservative viewpoints 

message: I believe its mentioned in the article that one of the attitudes is the belief that gay people (men in particular) as obsessed with sex.  What I don't think is there that probably should be is the related equation some people see between mentioning orientation and same-gender relationships and intimate details of  the sex lives of gay people.  I, myself, was having a conversation with someone who heard that a job applicant had mentioned he was gay at the end of the interview to be clear that his prospective employer would not have an issue with it.  The person I was speaking to was perplexed that it came up and said something along the lines of: "I don't need to know about his sex life".  I found that a telling statement as a straight person is free to discuss his girlfriend in public and it is seen as a normal, wholesome thing, but some view a gay man mentioning that he's gay or talking about his boyfriend in the same way as suddenly giving inappropriately graphic sexual information.  There is the equation in the minds of some that "I have a boyfriend" equals "I love anal sex and want to tell you exactly how we do it".
From my rant above, I am obviously not the person to add this concept to the article.  But I think it is a significant aspect of Societal Attitudes towards homosexuality that deserves some mention. --Chesaguy 02:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex Focus 

message: I have not "speculated" about anybody's sexual preferences.  The user pages of many of the people who edit the article say "this user is interested in LGBT issues", "LGBT Wikipedians", "this user supports equal rights for queer people", "I am Gay", "this user identifies as gay", "this user is a sheep herder on Brokeback Mountain".  That's not speculation.  That's fact.
Guanaco, what "accusatory statements" have I made?
Why was I asked to fill out an "issues to be mediated" section if nobody was going to read it?  Lou franklin 05:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mediation is over because I believe the article could be best improved if open discussion were to take place on this page. I am not going to address your other questions, because I have no interest in a tangential debate. —Guanaco 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said that I have made "accusatory statements".  What were they? Lou franklin 05:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You claimed that this article is controlled by a "well-organized group of extremists". Accusations such as this are not conducive to compromise and neutral editing. Rhobite 06:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To arbitration we go. Lou franklin 06:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Lou recently added to the article:
:Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson called the comparison of the civil rights movement to the "gay rights movement" a "disgrace to a black American". He said that "homosexuality is not a civil right. What we have is a bunch of radical homosexuals trying to attach their agenda to the struggles of the 1960s." 
I can't really see any reason to leave this out, unless it was pulled out of context.  Actually, there is one: It seems to create an picture of black men as especially homophobic.  But maybe that will lessen once I get around to fleshing out the section on opposition to the gay rights movement?  Actually, I'm thinking most of this criticism should go there, but for right now I guess it can stay where it is.  Lou also added:
:Many people feel that some homosexuals lack a moral foundation and would engage in vulgar behavior such as using obscenities in front of children.
This is unacceptable.  "Many people" is undefined.  Without attribution, this is just weasely language.  For the record, Lou, I'm not going to find acceptable, and I think most of the other editors here are with me, any attempts by you to construe the gay rights movement(s) as solely concerned with same-sex marriage, as you did with your initial paragraph.  -Seth Mahoney 03:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer that the obscenities be removed, but you win. Change it to "some people". Lou franklin 04:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Some people" is still a weasel phrase. —Guanaco 04:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?  Lou franklin 04:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't the number of people.  The issue is that you don't attribute the view to any specific group of people.  I left "many people" in in the current version, by the way, though I'd prefer it was specifically attributed.  -Seth Mahoney 04:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, take a look.  I think, even though the wording is the same, it no longer reads like a weasel phrase, because it is followed by a couple specific people with exactly that view.  -Seth Mahoney 04:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lou is alluding to the inclusion of the McCarthy "cocksucker" remark with that sentence about using obscenities in front of children. It's self-referential and it goes against Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Rhobite 04:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  Specifically, it should read "Lou franklin feels that ..." -- and unless Lou can cite sources, this is original research and should be removed. Cleduc 10:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 300,000,000 people in this country.  You don't think that some of them feel that way? Lou franklin 13:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which country is "this country"? This is a worldwide encyclopaedia. --Malthusian (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No original research - your own "survey of one", or pure conjecture.  I'm not making the claim, you are - the burden of proof is on you.  I also note that you didn't address Rhobite's objection above, which I second.  Cleduc 14:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, Lou, is it really "homosexuals" you have an issue with?  (You've commented that you think everyone but you in this discussion is homosexual: your paranoia is your issue and I don't expect facts get in the way of that.)  Wikipedia policy is what you seem to disagree with. Cleduc 14:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lou's recent changes 

message: Since Lou franklin has been blocked for 3RR again (four times in two weeks, three of those in one weeks)  I'm going to do what I said I'd do and file a request for arbitration this evening (that's in about 5-7 hours, for those in other time zones), unless anyone has any strong objections. I'm leaving it till then mostly because I have Firefox at home and tabbed browsing will make it easier to gather diffs etc. --Malthusian (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How will that help? Haiduc 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently Lou is waiting for his 3RR blocks to expire then continuing his edit warring and disruption of this discussion page. The ArbCom has the authority to impose harsher sanctions to ensure a long-term solution. --Malthusian (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to [[WP:RFAR|request arbitration]]

message: I think I'm done with the nationalism section for now.  The next step I planned was to edit the section on LGBT civil rights, or whatever its called at the moment, but I thought it would be helpful to flesh out gay pride first, since it is very much lacking in historical detail, and much of the content will likely overlap.  Then go back and move some of the info from gay pride and from gay rights into the civil rights section (and then continue from there with conservative reactions and AIDS).  Does that sound good to everyone?  Anyone have any constructive criticisms for the nationalism section, or any pointers for gay pride and the civil rights section?  (Actually, now that I think of it, the LGBT civil rights section should be post-AIDS, and there should be a brief pre-"conservative reactions" section on gay movements more generally, no?)  I'm also wondering, per someone's observation above (I think, or maybe elsewhere), if anyone wants to take up the monumental task of doing some research on societal reactions outside of the US, or if maybe the historical section, which is predominately US-based, should be moved to its own, US-specific article?  -Seth Mahoney 01:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointers? 

message: I'm wondering about this paragraph:
:A separate study shows that, in the United States, the younger generation is more supportive of gay rights than average. For example, a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 18-24 year olds strongly support gay rights. However, polling data also shows a trend among Americans in general toward rejection of homosexual-specific legal expansion of rights, especially homosexual marriage. A poll commissioned by CNN/USA Today Gallup in 2005 asked whether respondents thought same-sex marriages should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages. 68% said no, while 28% said yes [14]. In addition, 11 states rejected homosexual marriage in ballot initiatives during the 2004 elections.
Particularly, how it uses both "homosexual marriage" (a term usually used by conservatives) and "same-sex marriage" (a more neutral term).  I think that it would be most appropriate when referencing a given poll to use the same wording the poll does, since wording can affect the poll's outcome.  But unfortunately (and this is the second problem) the link is to an article at the Washington Post, which is not only a notoriously conservative paper (if I've got my posts right), but also doesn't seem to adhere to this ideal, since it uses the terms interchangably (and even puts scare quotes around 'marriage' sometimes, but not always).  I checked gallup.com, but the only possibly relevant polls require a subscription.  Does anyone have access so that we can check the language they use (and maybe doublecheck the results)?  -Seth Mahoney 01:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Pollingreport  the most recent CNN/USA/Gallup poll has 56%/39% against recognizing gay marriages. The exact wording of the question is "Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" Pollingreport is a good source since it does reproduce the exact wording of polls. Also you may be thinking of the Washington Times, which is owned by the Unification Church. The Washington Post is not known for being conservative, actually it's a frequent target of liberal bias accusations. Rhobite 01:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics issues 

message: An alternate spelling for "Muslim" that is occasionally used is "Moslim"; it is not recommended because it is often pronounced "mawzlem": which sounds like an Arabic word for "oppressor". http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_intr.htm
Lou franklin 13:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim / Moslim 

message: In the China section, this sentence caught my eye:
:In China, historical records tacitly assume bisexuality as the human norm. (Crompton, 2003, p.217)
What's the Crompton reference?  I'd like to make into a full ref tag, but don't know the rest of the info.  Anyone got any idea what the book title, publisher, etc. are?  -Seth Mahoney 03:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my own half-assed work. It is from Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization, Harvard University, 2003  Haiduc 03:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome, thanks.  Given the huge amount of detail you've added to articles, I don't think 'half-assed' is a word I'd associate with your work.  -Seth Mahoney 03:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  China reference 

message: oops... just hit save button by accident.. meant to say: "Let's discuss on talk page". :)
I'd like to discuss the opening paragraph. For example, Haiduc, I agree the term "homosexuality" is problematic when applied to non-western and historical cultures, but I think it's OK to start with it and then problematise it. Including the title in the opening para also follows the manual of style (as you noted). ntennis 03:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair? Historically, no cultures expected compulsory heterosexuality (am I mistaken). It is all a question of time period. In the present, nolo contendere. I agree to your first comment, about repeating the title and then problematizing. "Often" in the Haiduc dictionary "I oftenh go to the opera". "Generally", like "I generally brush my teeth before I go to bed." Haiduc 03:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New intro 

message: I don't think the numbering thing is working - it seems like the wiki is numbering all references, web or print, in order of their occurrence, so reference #12, which is, I think, a print reference, isn't listed at the bottom as #12, because there are web pages before it bumping up the numbering.  Does anyone know of anyway to fix this or to make numbering actually be automatic for the references section?  (And, more importantly, does this paragraph make sense to anyone but me?)  -Seth Mahoney 03:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never figured out how the damn thing worked, which is why I still put references in the text. Haiduc 04:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oy, that makes sense.  No, I think you're right, the article was just using inline references for websites and footnotes for print sources and that was messing things up.  So, I guess that means we should use only footnotes from now on?  I'll look out for more reference templates and see if there is something that will work better.  -Seth Mahoney 05:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone wants to convert the references to the new system, it is much easier to maintain - handles all the numbering for you. There is really no reason to mess with the old ref templates anymore. See m:Cite/Cite.php. Rhobite 05:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the conversion is done.  Woohoo!  33 references!  -Seth Mahoney 18:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More references issues 

message: I'll try to fix the refrences to new-format this evening. Here's the brief primer
Replace all of the in-text links with something that looks like this
:Old:
:
:New:
:http://www.google.com note - ['s removed
or
:Old
:<nowiki>
:New
:Pants, a memoire by Art Vandelay
Replace the refrences section at the bottom with the simple 
So:
Pants are typicallyhttp://www.google.com worn around the legs and waist.Pants, a memoire by Art Vandelay
Refrences
Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refrences 

message: Lou, I noticed you put a  tag on the sentence:
:This perceived connection between homosexuality and antinationalism was present in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia as well, and appears in contemporary politics to this day.
The only reason I didn't provide a source is that the articles History of gays in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust and Gay rights in Russia, which are linked to in the sentence, provide more details on the subject, and sources should be (if they're not yet, I'll add them to my list of projects) there.  If there's no argument within a couple days, I'll go ahead and remove the  tag.  -Seth Mahoney 01:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communists and Nazis 

message: Hey all, just came across history of societal attitudes towards homosexuality, which covers a lot of the same stuff that's in here.  I figure we should merge anything there that's not here and then make it a redirect to this article.  We can split the article off again later, if the history section gets out of control.  Any comments?  -Seth Mahoney 02:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Doesn't look like there's really much of anything in that other article anyway. Hbackman 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see anything either, so I went ahead and did the redirect. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge tag 

message: Oh, by the way Lou, regarding your (possibly legitimate) changes being reverted, it may be a good idea, if you absolutely have to engage in edit warring over the McCarthy quote and the "so-called" nonsense and whatever other changes you keep making against consensus, to first make any new changes which you think might be accepted into the final article, and then after that do a second edit where you make all your reverts.  That way they're kept separate, and when the inevitable revert happens, if your other changes are accepted, we can just revert to the last version by you.  The process goes like so:
:1.  Make any legitimate changes you can think of.
:2.  Save the article.
:3.  Edit the article again, inserting all the changes consensus has deemed illegitimate (like removal of the McCarthy quote, the "so-called" stuff, and whatever else I can't think of at the moment because my immoral, hedonistic, homosexual lifestyle has destroyed my higher reasoning centers).
:4.  Save the article.
This isn't really an acceptable editing practice, so don't quote me if you're caught violating 3RR, but it doesn't seem like you're going to stop edit warring, so it might be helpful in the meantime.  I don't really care to continue this specific line of dialogue, so don't bother replying to it - I just wanted to point out a possible way to get changes in the article that aren't reverted wholesale.  -Seth Mahoney 01:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that calling my changes "nonsense" and then saying "I don't really care to continue this specific line of dialogue, so don't bother replying to it" is civil?  Did I ever call your lifestyle "immoral" or "hedonistic"?  Please familiarize yourself with this Wikipedia policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civility Lou franklin 03:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a pleasant change.  My apologies for any offensive content.  The point, however, is something you might keep in mind.  -Seth Mahoney 03:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite an apology. Lou franklin 12:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, despite my perhaps uncivil tone I was trying to be helpful with the above suggestions.  Take it or leave it.  (By the way, look at this diff if you're not understanding what I'm getting at:  - here you made several changes, some of which were the same old edit warring, and some of which were new.  If you made the legit changes first, saved the article, and then did your edit warring, the legit changes would have been more likely to be taken seriously.  But, do whatever you want.) -Seth Mahoney 20:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to Lou: How to avoid getting reverted

message: I noticed these sentences in the violence section:
:During the Holocaust gay people experienced violence (see gays during the Holocaust). Violence against homosexuals (see Gay bashing, for instance) continues to occur today.
Is there any reason that the two articles those sentences link to aren't linked inline?  It seems to me that it would be stylistically better this way:
:During the Holocaust, gay people experienced violence.  Violence against homosexuals, such as gay bashing, continues to occur today.
-Seth Mahoney 00:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's much better wording. I went ahead and replaced it myself. I'm pretty sure that if anything says 'see X' it should be reworded - I seem to recall reading that one reason to avoid 'see X' is that if Wikipedia is made into a print version, 'see X' doesn't make much sense. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I gave the "Anti-gay speech" section the same treatment, inserting something that looks more like a stub than a soft redirect. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've read recommendations elsewhere that "see also" sections should be converted into inline links in the text, and undoubtedly it applies to this sort of thing as well.  The only reason I didn't change it myself is that sometime within the past week or two it was changed to the sentences above and I wasn't sure if that was part of some Lou compromise.  -Seth Mahoney 01:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violence section 

message: Can we start archiving this page, or are there too many concerns that are still active?  It is getting a bit unwieldy.  -Seth Mahoney 03:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the arbitration with Lou closed? If it isn't, I think that everything relating to him needs to stay on the talk page for now. That would mean that only the first six sections are archivable, and I'm not sure that it's worth only archiving 6 sections. Hbackman 03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, the arbitration is still going on, and those first six sections are pretty small.  Oh well.  -Seth Mahoney 03:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving possible? 

message: Okay, Seth agreed to this idea, and Lou didn't give me a yes or no response either way after a few requests, so I'm starting a poll to try to get a community consensus on the debate covered under the "More blind reverts" section of this page.
The issue is with the following sentence from the introductory paragraph:
:All cultures have their own values regarding appropriate and inappropriate sexuality; some expect all members to engage in same-sex behaviour, while ?????? condemn such activity.
The question for this poll is what those question marks should be replaced by:
a)"others"
b)"many others"
c)"most"
Please give your votes in a similar format to an AfD:
* vote reasons (optional) ~~~~.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR REASONS/RESPONSES CONCISE! In order to keep this poll readable, please try to avoid getting into the kind of lengthy, circular discussion that's taking up most of the space in "More blind reverts." I'm not saying that all discussion in this poll is bad, but try to keep it from taking over the section. Thanks.
I will try to summarize the two main viewpoints/arguments relating to this issue from "More blind reverts" when I get a chance.
Hbackman 05:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: * Many others.  It seems like a perfectly good compromise to me.  --Rory096 06:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: This tag belongs on the article page, as can be seen from its link to the talk page. But on the other hand I think this article represents a far more geoegraphic view than it did when the tag was put in place. What Americentrism there is is probably 'natural' due to the fact that most research of this kind is done in the United States, as well as its more prevalent media and more vocal religious community (compared to Europe). I think it should just be removed, and have boldly done so. If someone wants to replace it, please put it on the article page rather than the talk page. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|limitedgeographicscope}} removed

message: Lou intends to add a  tag to the article when his 48 hour block for his 5th 3RR violation expires . I believe it isn't deserved unless someone other than Lou is disputing the neutrality, as Lou's behaviour hasn't given me any confidence that he will accept a genuinely neutral version of the article. Are there any other editors here who believe a 'neutrality disputed' tag is warranted? Otherwise my instinct is to revert the tag if he adds it. I may be wrong but I don't believe a single problematic editor qualifies as an actual 'dispute' when there is a clear consensus. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 09:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're technically right about what qualifies as a dispute, but I wouldn't bother reverting a POV tag since the article is currently being worked on, and some sort of notice that it isn't currently what should be expected from a wikipedia article is really okay.  Let Lou have his little victory.  -Seth Mahoney 19:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: From looking at this page, it is a fair statement that there is a dispute on the neutrality of this article.  Until the dispute is resolved the tag should be there. I have added it (btw, marking the change "minor" was a mistake in the click of the mouse). Cleduc 21:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 22:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That misses the point that it is not the fact that an article is disputed but its actual bias that merits an NPOV tag. If it was not that way then every minority editor could slap a POV tag at will on anything. Not onloy that, but Cleduc has not even said what it is about the article that he is in disagreement with. Haiduc 23:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag says "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I understand that Wikipedia:NPOV dispute says that it is the opinion of the person who puts the POV tag.  However, with the POV tag I acknowledged a running dispute on neutrality which has consumed this article for the past month.  Once that dispute is over (hopefully arbitration will end soon) then we should remove the tag.  In the meantime, there is an edit war going on, and fairly regularly the article has content introduced which I certainly consider to be POV.  This happens on average 4x per day every other day.  If what's happening with this article isn't a neutrality dispute, then I don't know what one is.  If someone else disagrees and chooses to pull off the POV tag, go ahead - I won't reapply it. I am not in disagreement with anything in the article at this instant.  No reason to hide the fact there's a conflict, though.  Cleduc 01:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a "disputed" tag that doesn't invoke NPOV accusations? -Seth Mahoney 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, can we try to work out what we're actually disagreeing on here? Because I'm somewhat confused now. If we're still concerned about whether the article is Americentric, we can put  back, if it's the factual accuracy we're concerned about, we can use . --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 23:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still a little concerned about the article's Americacentricness, at least as far as recent history goes.  I don't think there is a problem with factual accuracy, and I don't think there is an NPOV problem.  But Lou does, and I don't really think its worth it to take 16 pages arguing with him about it at this point, since the article is a work in progress and will obviously have some kind of problem(s) for the time being, and since researching and writing are far more important tasks that have been given less importance than dealing with Lou's, um, requests for attention.  -Seth Mahoney 23:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Note to readers: each of the issues mentioned above (introduction, civil rights, marriage) has been discussed on this talk page, resulting in consensus by all except the above editor (Lou franklin).  Claims of misconduct by the above editor are currently being discussed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin. Cleduc 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of accuracy, it should be said that claims of misconduct by everyone involved are currently being discussed in the arbitration case. It's just that the presentation of evidence is rather one-sided at the moment. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 14:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag?