Talk:Societal attitudes toward homosexuality/Archive 3

message: merging two sections, as they both effectively centre on Lou's continued disruption
Ok, I suggest that we leave the stuff above the stuff above (exccept the discussion on removing the POV tag), and move on with sensible things for the coming week now taht Lou has been banned for a week. KimvdLinde 03:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guanaco, so sorry to hear you were desysopped again. Lou franklin 02:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The block has been reduced to its original 1 week. Which I agree with, as community consensus for an indefinite block looks unlikely. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, if someone objects, please undo. KimvdLinde 01:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lou blocked for a week, maybe we can now work on improving this article! 

message: (note to archivers: cut above this line 8-)
I wanted to put some comments out here regarding the POV issue, separate from the discussions above tangled up with Lou's actions.  Hopefully this can be a new starting point for more ongoing work.
First of all, I'd like to thank everyone who's been working on this over the last few months.  As I have said before, the article is much more neutral and balanced, better referenced, etc.  Accomplishing this much improvement in the face of the damage being done is impressive positive commentary on many people's patience and committment to making positive contributions.
I've said this before, but might as well do so again to put this in context.  My personal views in many areas are mainstream conservative, with a dash of libertarian (little-l).  Gay rights are not an issue I'm conservative on; it's never bothered me personally, and the political arguments and religious arguments never swayed me.  However, I do care that the opinions of people who I otherwise somewhat to largely agree with be accurately represented here.
Attempting to take a long step back and assess where things are now, my 500 meter view is that the article remains evasive about what is essentially the one major sticking point in polite discussion between reasonable conservative and reasonable liberal populations in the US, the question of gay marriage.  I think that this is the one remaining serious hot button issue... gay adoption doesn't seem to have legs as a mainstream issue, nor gay priests, outside of the specific congregations where support is too down the middle.  It's down to the definition of marriage.  The article sort of skips past the question in the second section without really addressing it, and comes back to it briefly in the Statistics section at the end.  This issue raises very strong feelings on both sides, and has identified a rift across society in people's personal ideas about what defines a marriage and who sets that definition, etc.
It also doesn't address at all that I see now the controversy over the military's Don't ask Don't tell policy, which has mysteriously been essentially waived due to manpower requirements in the Iraq war but remains "on the books" as it were.
I want to keep reviewing the overall balance; I feel like mainstream conservative objections to gay rights are still not quite fairly addressed outside those points, but a lot of the issue is tangled up in specifics of arguments with absent editor.  I think that a case can be made for more specifics beyond those major ones, and for general tone.  I would like a couple of days of calm to assess and then start discussing that.
Regarding the POV tag; I have no intention of using it as a bludgeon or weapon in the debate.  I feel that there are still unresolved issues, and think the tag is a useful way of indicating that.  I'd ask that other contributors agree to leave it there for the time being, with my pledge that seeking consensus is my goal, that I feel that cooperation is extremely likely to work here, and that as we approach it I'll support it going away.
It will probably take a little while to unwind the article from the arguments brought on by absent editor; I know that I am still seeing sections of it mentally framed by the various edit and revert wars and arguments here, and that's not really the ultimate goal or fair to the article, or other editors.  But to hazard a guess, we're all there in some form or another, so let's be extra-polite for a few days while we decompress from that.
Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert 07:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good Mr. Herbert and I look forward to your suggestions as a breath of fresh air. Yours, Chesaguy 13:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks a lot for your insights. I also think the article is at places POV, for the same reasons you mention (And I am a left wing lesbian). I get the impression that you want to focus on US aspects primarily, and I disagree with that and I think it has to be focussed on societies at large. For the rest, I am affraid that everything will continue in a week time, unless the ArbCom has made its decision by that time. KimvdLinde 15:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the english-language wikipedia, and to some degree a focus on the english speaking countries (US, UK, Canada, AUS, NZ) is unavoidable; I think that primarily on the US is stronger than I'm looking for, but more strongly on the US would be a good idea.  Gay rights issues seem to have become less controversial in much of the rest of the english speaking world.  In terms of the context around the world, no disagreement here - opinions here in the US have varied over time, and in other countries, and seeing both the widely varied other cultural responses and the historical examples are all important.  Georgewilliamherbert 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is the english wikipedia, but it is also the lingua franca of our time, and many non-native english speakers edit here just because of the reach this language has (see also Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Anglo-American_focus. I think a good solution is to have a seperate section that focusses on the US, so that the additional issues that play in the US can be addressed. KimvdLinde 01:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  For the time being, I believe such a section exists.  It may be worthwhile to keep in mind the idea of making it a spin-off article if it gets to big, and just including a summary in this article.  -Seth Mahoney 01:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However we approach it, I don't want to minimize the other stuff already here in any way.  Just making that clear.  Georgewilliamherbert 01:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think (for the record) that you were going down that road.  One major reason I suggested keeping in mind the possibility of a spin-off for the US section is because there is a lot of scholarship on that area, and another is because this is currently a hot topic here. In other words: There's a LOT to write (especially if you're writing in English) about American attitudes toward homosexuality.  -Seth Mahoney 04:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV points 

message: Note: Lou has been blocked for 3RR again -- for one month this time. Cleduc 03:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another block 

message: Since GofG has asked we discuss this change, I'll add in my two cp as well. I think "recruit" is the way to go.  While "convert" is also stong, I believe that "recruit" has a longer history with regards to this phenomenon.  See homosexual recruitment and more importantly Anita Bryant, “As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children”.  There's nothing wrong with "convert", per se, but "recruit" seems to have historically been the term used. --Chesaguy 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I hear the word "recruit," I think of setting up advertisements and possibly using propoganda to sway one's opinion to join a group. When I hear the word "covert," I think of using unfair methods or actions to force one's opinion to join a group. That's my reasoning, and I think that's what the Anita Bryant might of meant. Of course, I had not seen all that about Anita Bryant, so "recruit" would be better, as it is what they actually said, even if it's not as strong as it should be concerning biased mothers, such as Bryant seems to be. I'll make the reverts, but right now I'm already late for school. GofG |||  Contribs 11:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convert vs. Recruit 

message: Bisexuality isn't mentioned in the title... but bisexual behaviour is mentioned in the article throughout, in stressing that men who sleep with men also sleep with women.  However, all of the examples given are about males.  Women are only mentioned in passing under LGBT social movements.  What historical examples can we give?  Sappho, certainly.  Lesbian#History has a couple of others, though it is not exactly extensive (and should be herstory). Lesbian#Culture has a little more. Cleduc 04:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lesbians are tough.  There isn't as much scholarship there, though certainly that's changing, and in a world where primarily men have legislated and written history, female sexuality tends to be excluded or, at best, glossed over.  Given, also, certain prevailing assumptions about female sexuality being somehow dependant or parasitic on male sexuality, it becomes extremely hard to find examples of lesbian sexuality in history.  However, there are plenty of examples in American history - the US section is already pretty heavy, though.  I'm reading a book right now that makes some mention of lesbians in the Soviet Union, but it suffers from the same problem that seems indemic to history - namely, that it is primarily history.  -Smahoney 05:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about lesbianism?