Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 7

Sexual orientation in human sexuality
Orientations
	hetero-homo continuum; Bisexual · Heterosexual · Homosexual Asexuality · Pansexual
Gender-based; alternative concepts
	Non-westernized concepts; of male sexuality · ; Third sex · Two-Spirit
Research
	Biology · Demographics · Environment · ; Kinsey scale · Klein Grid · Non-heterosexual · ; Queer studies · Sexology
List
	List (category) of; sexual orientations
LGBT Portal · Sexuality Portal
	This box: view; talk; edit;

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Sexology

Resolved

– Done. Banjeboi 17:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Once the above issues have been settled I'd like to see sexology re-added, possibly under the Study/research section. Banjeboi 10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

this would also be a good addition. --Ludwigs2 00:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, sure. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Queer studies

Resolved

– Done. -- Banjeboi 11:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

From the Proposal #5 discussion it's suggested to add Queer studies under the "Research" section.

Support. seems like a good match. Banjeboi 22:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Support as above. Queerudite (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
support --Cooljuno411 (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Support --Ludwigs2 08:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsure. What would be the reason for including Queer Studies but not Conversion therapy? The case for including conversion therapy would surely be about as strong. Skoojal (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. At another time such a discussion would work but since we've gone through a lot of discussion on very similar lines, (If A and B is there then so should C), let's try just one at a time so we can keep things more productive. I think having a discussion about scope would be helpful but until that occurs maybe just start a new thread proposing conversion therapy if you wish to do so. Banjeboi 07:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to take that view, then I'm shifting my position to opposed, although it's a weak opposed, not a strong opposed. I doubt that Queer Studies has much to do with research into sexual orientation per se - it's more about gay culture. I'll still support this version of the template even if Queer Studies is included, however. Skoojal (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The view I'm taking is that we have wound up a lot of energy by bundling and contrasting article A verses article B. I think it's more constructive to include or not include something based on the article itself. Before I rewrote non-heterosexual I wouldn't have wanted it included but now it's a much better and clearer article so its inclusion works. If all the articles were in better condition, IMHO, we'd have an easier time sorting which ones should obviously be included or not. Banjeboi 08:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. look, I think we need to keep in mind that this is a template. it needs to do (at least) the following things

provide links to articles that discuss prominent and accepted of aspects of sexual orientation
provide links to articles that discuss prominent and accepted academic work on sexual orientation
provide links to articles that discuss prominent and accepted social and political positions on sexual orientation
provide links to articles that discuss issues that are normally associated with sexual orientation

'Queer Studies' probably belongs in the second point, just because a lot of the work on sexual orientation would have fallen in that category. 'Conversion Therapy' might fall under the third point, if it's significant enough, but I tend to see it as just one bit of a broader discussion about the moral nature of homosexuality (i.e., the greater argument is that homosexuality is primarily mental and morally questionable, and ConvTher is a tool that works within that paradigm). we should paint in broad strokes on templates - are there any articles about the debate over what homosexuality is that might be used instead of the specific conversion therapy reference? --Ludwigs2 01:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually conversion therapy would fall under all of those categories, except for number 1. Skoojal (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The moral nature of homosexuality is not even discussed very much on the conversion therapy page. It discusses (1) prominent and accepted aspects of whether sexual orientation can be changed. (2) Academic work on the methods used in the past and present, as well as studies on the rates of harm and successful change of sexual orientation. (3) Political debate surrounding whether to deny people the right to seek to change sexual orientation. (4) Positions of various gay activist groups and religious organizations. I think conversion therapy is at the heart of sexual orientation because it delves into what exactly sexual orientation is and what people think about it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

interesting... part of the problem here is that the conversion therapy page isn't really about 'conversion therapy'. it's a well-written but badly named article that covers a range of issues around societal responses to homosexuality. I wouldn't mind linking that article, but I'm put off by the name. could we link it to the the subsection Conversion_therapy#Malleability_of_sexual_orientation, and call it 'malleability of orientation'?. honestly, I think that 'conversion therapy' should be renamed and merged with the Heterosexual-homosexual continuum stub that CJ made (so that efforts to change orientation are put in context with the various efforts to understand orientation...). --Ludwigs2 21:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Thank you all for proving my point that it might be more constructive to simply debate one article at a time instead. This is excellent discussion and I suggest that a new thread be started for each article someone thinks should be included. Banjeboi 11:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Environment and sexual orientation

Resolved

– Done, article concerns have generally been addressed. -- Banjeboi 11:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a link to biology. I think we should also include environment. From what I have read, most medical associations believe sexual orientation comes from a combination of biology and environment. It would be POV to prefer one over the other. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposed for now. You re-created that article a day ago, let's give it a little time to see how it develops with other editors' input. Banjeboi 00:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Support. Joshua's reasons for wanting to include it seem good enough to me. It could be a better article (left some comments about that on the talk page), but I don't see any reason for not including it. Skoojal (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Support Queerudite (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Innate bisexuality

I think innate bisexuality might be a good addition to the "Research" section. Banjeboi 02:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw this one. On second thought it needs a lot of work but may be a good candidate after a bit of sourcing and clean-up takes place. -- Banjeboi 11:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

heterosexual-homosexual continuum

I believe that under the "orientations" section of this template, the heterosexual-homosexual continuum should be clearly distinguished from the other orientations on the template. I would like to here other opinion [and hopefully with justification for why or why not they believe this addition should appear]. thanks = ¬], and the template to the right is an example of what i am talking about. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The hetero-homo article has a number of issues including a lack of citations and possibly original research. Additionally, the article appears to be simply a restatement of the definition of sexual orientation and the Kinsey scale, both of which already appear on the template and are in much better shape. Adding it to the template would be WP:UNDUE and would not add any new information that isn't contained in the articles that already appear on the template. Queerudite (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you believe it is original research, i recommend you read the references or maybe take a look on google, because it clearly isn't. And by way, the references of the actual sexual orientation article clearly states the same thing as the continuum, i recommend you read the references of the orientation article as well.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Oh wait, just took a peak at the article again, it has a reference from the American Phycological society, the same site used for the sexual orientation article, so i ask you remove your appeasement and reassess your opinion on the matter, because i have just made your statements a falsity.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Basically what Queerudite states, that article needs a lot of work. I'd feel more confident in an article about sexual orientation in general and research concerning such and we do seem to have those already. -- Banjeboi 10:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, adds no useful information that isn't in sexual orientation or Kinsey scale. --Alynna (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Sounds like a good idea.--StealthyVlad (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

current "orientations" section in violation wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Lists

The current version of the "orientation" section is in clear violation with wikipedia policy involving the proper procedure and rights of assembling a list (Wikipedia:Lists).

Among a laundry lists of violations this template infringes by having a bialy selected list, i will state the most major and apparent violations bellow.

"Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list."

This biasly selected list by a group of users dominated with their own personal agendas to surpress and blind knowledge contradicts on of the primary and fundamental rules of listing.

"It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one."

Why is the current list so limited?, why do some users feel as though they have the right to violate this rule and force their ideologies on to the template? Once again this template is in clear violation of a neutral-point-view, one of the main arguments for having such a limited "pick-and-choice" list was "those terms are not popular or well known". This logic is no longer, and has never been, a valid argument, and it is appalling that it was used and prevailed as the major factor for decision making in such a sensitive and emotional article.

I have made it quite obvious that this version has no right, and shall not continue, to be in use, a newer, more neutral, version is required. The only morally right thing to do would be to add all orientations to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs)

Just to try to address the more apparent problems with this position. This is a template and not a list. We have included the most common orientations our readers would expect to see - no reason to include the neologism pomosexual - if that is what this is all about. -- Banjeboi 10:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that would be in clear violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively."

Your "most common" argument violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, so unless you have anything further to say, i will equally add other identities.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, CJ, WP:NPOV also states that there is no need to include the perspectives of tiny minority positions (this is to prevent articles from getting swamped with every possible viewpoint that was ever imagined). if this were an article then there might be room to make the kinds of additions you want to make, assuming that you can show that they are views held in reliable sources. on a template, however, we ned to stick to the bare bones of the issue, which means exactly what Banjeboi said - most common orientations our readers would expect to see. --Ludwigs2 20:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please quote that or i will take no regard.... and asexual, and especially pansexual are just as comparative to other orientations bieng denied access to this template. And btw, don't assert a that a template is somehow above the qualifications of a article, wikipedia policy does not change when you are editing a template, please don't make up your own policy to twist your personal theories onto people.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

--Ludwigs2 20:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed...."

Were not comparing views, so you are trying to falsely interoperate the clear text in-front of you, this is obviously not a comparison of the orientations. So if you, as well and Banjeboi, have nothing else to say, i will put this template back into compliance of wikipedia policy.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

finish reading, CJ, to the part that says and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. --Ludwigs2 20:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well if we are giving recognition to "pansexual" or "asexual" then we can clearly give the right to other views, they are clearly just as notable as, for example, zoosexuality, commonly referred to as bestiality. And btw, views are opinions, we are not discussing how the earth came about, we are talking about factual orientations. What i recommend is using this edit, were the "major views" are on the template and the others are clearly noted in a "see other" style of section.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, and we've been down this path several times now. Prior consensus was to leave these off until their prominence in academic environments raised them to a notable level. It would also help if the articles in question were greatly cleaned up. Pomosexual is very limited in use and appeal, it's a neologism by respected sexologists but it's new and not in broad use anymore than many other neologisms. There's plenty for a good article available but almost all of it traces back to their book which is a collection of essays bundled around a theme. Now if they, or someone started a Pomosexual conference, produced an art show or wrote a more research oriented book that would effectively double the notability of the term. But that really hasn't seemed to happen as of yet. I note that pomosexual and many other identities have crept onto other template(s) and that's generally OK as they already were rather laundry-list-ish. -- Banjeboi 02:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse but did i ever once mention "pomosexual" at all in this discussion?, no. It appears to me that you truly do have a underlying agenda, and i am appalled you are continuing to force your viewd onto people. The only thing i ever proposed was using this edit which clarified a "see here for further reading" mention in the template. And i am obviously trying to get consensus but if you don't plan on proposing anything to fix this clear violation of wikipedia policy then we will be forced to use my idea. If their is only 1 proposed fixture, mine, and no others that obviously you are going to have to deal with my edit if you don't plan on endorsing another proposed change. It has already been proven that the template is in clear violation of wikipedia policy by picking and choosing what can and can't go on the template, I have clearly proven that your "most common" assertion is a very apparent violation to the policy, so you can either (a)deal with my edit or (b)propose your own edit.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Disagree completely with your assessment of this. My agenda remains improving articles, that has never wavered. If pomosexual was as prominent and as widely accepted/used/cited as the others then I would have no issue including it. It isn't. And I mention it as you have repeatedly tried to inject it on this template and elsewhere along with a few others including one article which was deleted altogether. I also disagree with your assessment that the template is in violation of policy - if you feel that we are then you might ask on an admin board if your take on the situation is indeed correct. If you simply must have a counter proposal - the obvious one is that we don't make the change you propose. This aligns with previous consensus and what seems to be the consensus here presently. -- Banjeboi 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

CJ, you're going about this the wrong way. obviously you have strong feelings on this issue, but accusing other editors of having some unspecified 'agenda' is bad form. maybe if you gave us some idea about (a) why this issue is so important to you, and (b) what your larger goal is in making this kind of edit, we can work out some kind of compromise. the fact is, though, that I (and I think Banjeboi) have been opposed to these changes because some are rather contentious and none are well-sourced. I don't want to add content to a template that blurs commonly-made distinctions, particularly not on an issue that is a personal and sensitive as sexual orientation. If you want to make an argument, please explain to us why it's important to you to have this (using reliable sources to back up your assertions). but please don't make the argument that your changes should be included because any opposition is invalid. that leads nowhere except to bad feelings. --Ludwigs2 03:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you guys even reading what i type?, Bangiboi keeps going on about pomosexual when i have never once mentioned it. The only thing i have been saying, and will say again is to use this edit which clearly makes it noticeable to "see the list section for more orientation labels". I will settle for that so we can have the template be in compliance with NPOV. And btw, how is pomosexual, now that you bring it up, "not well sourced", it has news articles and written books just like any other article.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am reading what you type, yes, and I'm remembering our previous discussions as well. You've consistently wanted to expand the template to include all sorts of things that are not commonly and conventionally considered orientations. this latest addition is simply another avenue to that end (essentially adding everything in the 'see also' section as though each were generally considered a sexual orientation). at best the added line is redundant; at worst it's misleading, and in either case it's unnecessary. Sexual orientation is reasonably well-defined in the literature; let's try not to muddy the waters.

with respect to 'pomosexual': that word is a lifestyle word, like 'metrosexual', not an orientation term. mainly it's a label for people who dislike being labeled. it's also a neologism that may have some play in the media, but has no real foothold in people's lives or in academia. if I spent the afternoon walking down the street and asking people, I could easily find a few hundred straights and a few dozen gays, a handful of Bis and (maybe) an asexual or two, but I could do that for weeks without finding a single person who identifies as pomosexual. --Ludwigs2 21:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well i guess we won't see eye-to-eye so i made a new template, Template:Sexual orientation labels, identity, and referenda. The name makes it rather clear, the template deals with what people label themselves, regardless of what is "more common", "traditional", or whatever the qualifications for this template that clearly only picks what you believe can fit. So know we will have two templates that have to do with two very separate topics, this one which i thought i knew what it was for [but i guess i don't], and a template that deals with "Sexual orientation labels, identity, and referenda".--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've marked that template for deletion as a content fork. you can read about those here: Wikipedia:Content forking. I'd also suggest you read this: Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing. --Ludwigs2 04:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously this is not "content forking" or the criteria for an orientation to fit on Template:Sexual orientation labels, identity, and referenda would be the exact same as getting on this template. Template:Sexual orientation labels, identity, and referenda has to to with Sexual orientation labels, identity, and referenda, this template has to do with "most common orientations" not at "equal footing" [1], stating that they are "original research" [2] and many other attempts to try and bar out labels you don't feel suite. You already know what you said but if you want feel free to go back and look through the archives.

Add a see also section?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolvedapproved --cooljuno411 02:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we add a see also section?--cooljuno411 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

agree, i think it is needed--cooljuno411 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

add Perceived sexual orientation to the see also section?

Resolvedapproved --cooljuno411 02:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If we add a see also section, should we add Perceived sexual orientation to the see also section?--cooljuno411 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

agree, sounds like it would make a great fit. The article needs some exposure to be expanded.--cooljuno411 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to point out, that there was a FIVE (5) day wait before i enacted this edit, dramatically longer than the recommended THREE (3) day waiting period.--cooljuno411 21:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the main problem, te issue was that it was reverted and instead of discussing here as we have needed to do in the past with your proposed inclusions you simply reverted again. This is not a battleground. When disagreements arise we discuss it and, generally, content is removed until including it reaches consensus. -- Banjeboi 10:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Add Something?

There seems to be 2 articles, Homosexuality and Homosexual orientation. Can this be reflected in the template? Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Currently, only Homosexual orientation is in the template. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there should be both on the template--cooljuno411 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The template is for orientations and were the main article, Homosexuality, not split, that's where it would go to. Instead it goes to the most appropriate target, Homosexual orientation. -- Banjeboi 05:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So maybe Orientation could be changed as "Orientation and Behaviour" so both Homosexuality and Homosexual orientation can be linked. Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "Sexual orientation and labels"?--cooljuno411 07:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. One article is about homosexuality as a behaviour, the other as an orientation. So the title should be Orientation/Behaviour, with both Homosexuality and Homosexual orientation listed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

HOW ABOUT: "Sexual orientation. labels, identities, and behaviour" as the title.--cooljuno411 19:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How about the template was and is fine as just about orientations. Template creep doesn't help our readers. There's nothing preventing them from easily accessing the homosexuality, or any other, article easily linked on the connected articles. Templates help organize, not list every possible related subject and article. -- Banjeboi 20:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No actually, it's weird that there are 2 articles and takes some time to find that there are 2. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a realistic concern but isn't readily fixed here. I would look to addressing that on the articles themselves, both gay and homosexual have had incredibly volatile editing with the homosexual orientation forked off. It may make sense to link to the main article instead if a hatnote clarifies that the fork exists or vice versa so that finding the articles isn't a challenge. -- Banjeboi 13:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also note that while homosexual acts may not be fully correlated with orientation, there is at least some correlation. It is very relevant to the template. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. To me that seems a slippery slope. If correlation is the test than there are lots of articles that could be added. I remain convinced that we should be clear on this template and direct the reader to the article most likely to address needs for information about the subject. They each link to the other but there has been a lot of editing which, IMHO, has degraded the structure. FYI, we did have a Bisexual orientation and a Heterosexual orientation as well. Presently, after looking them both over I would send someone to Homosexuality which comfortably overveiws info and sends folks off to a myriad of other articles including Homosexual orientation which seems kind of wonky. This could completely change but my hunch is that the main article, Homosexuality, is more stable. If you still disagree perhaps we could start a new poll, A, B or both and see what happens? -- Banjeboi 15:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

The prevalence section needs to be REMOVED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.190.167 (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Perceived sexual orientation

Resolved

– Valid subject but for now it has been merged into the main article to grow. -- Banjeboi 15:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Let's formally and clearly discuss if this article presently is a good fit for the template. If it's decided to include we can then sort out where might make the most sense. Please consider viewing the archives for similar previous discussions on including or disincluding articles. -- Banjeboi 14:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Opposed for now. Perceived sexual orientation sounds good but it needs a lot of work before its inclusion on the template. This has been a similar concern with other articles that was the source of a long process to get the current template version. I guess the closest concern from the guidelines is If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them. Perceived sexual orientation was created twenty days ago, and renamed since and is very much in need of notability and sourcing. It's got some fairly significant issues that, IMHO, preclude its inclusion at this time. The last articles added, Environment and sexual orientation and Non-heterosexual were both greatly improved with sourcing and vetted a that they were reliably sourced. Templates could be used to drive traffic to articles in dire need but in this template I would certainly advise against it. Maybe after a dozen or so reliable sources were added and the article vetted a bit? I think it still has a notability tag, that's not the best sign. Once I understood, or at least I think I understand what Cooljuno411 expressed on the article's talkpage about the nature of the article I agree there is potential but it may be too soon in this case. -- Banjeboi 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This article sub-section is not formatted right.... it should be formated with an AGREE vote meaning a change to the article.... and an OPPOSE vote to keep the status quo. --cooljuno411 20:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Formatting should not be a barrier to discussion. Aleta ^Sing 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall me saying that....--cooljuno411 21:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Note:the following two votes were added from another thread but seen as accurate

Support Perceived sexual orientation is very relevant to sexual orientation template. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Support perceived sexual orientation.... very relevant article, i don't see any reason to remove.--cooljuno411 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, This is rediculous, precieved sexual orientation should go into this template.--Ingopingo (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)— Ingopingo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If it smells like a sock... - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 07:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Just for clarity's sake how does Undefined sexual orientation fit into all this? That article is also problematic but perhaps a merge could address that it's onlt a sentence or two. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what your are trying to ask or imply. And i also do not know what you mean when you talk about merging Undefined sexual orientation, you have not even stated what want to merge it with... maybe you should discuss the merger on that particular talk page. And i also reverted you edit, please don't preach consensus then turn around and remove things from the article without consensus. Approval was reached to add perceived sexual orientation to the template. The fact that i was the only one to voice an opinion in that FIVE (5) day waiting period doesn't give you the right to revert.... if you don't make it to election day, don't complain about the results.... my vote was the only one in the "ballot box", so you are going to have to come to terms that it is on the template until this current discussion is over. I am happy that you have gone through proper procedure, and started this current discussion. But until this current talk is over, i assume by Monday or Tuesday, you can not remove things without consensus.--cooljuno411 01:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Both Perceived sexual orientation and Undefined sexual orientation were branched out of Pomosexual by you. They both are articles in dire need of improving, they both have serious notability and referencing issues. They are both very new articles by you and you are the primary author. This doesn't mean they couldn't be improved but at this time they are both good candidtaes for merging. Possibly together but it's unclear to me where you think this is going in the frontier of sexual orientation identification. There is no consensus for inclusion of any of these articles on the template and templates aren't generally used to draw attention to articles in this way. They tie together a series of articles that are logical and supportive of each other. None of these are there yet. The burden isn't on those removing content - like it or not reasonable content is often removed for discussion - the burden rests on those inserting or re-inserting content. It can stay out for now. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Undefined sexual orientation was a split from Pomosexual, Perceived sexual orientation was not, i started that article from scratch. Don't see the logic of merging them.... apples and carrots, come from the earth, put are entirely different... I spilt pomosexual and undefined sexual orientaiton, though similar concepts, still different.... like french fries and chips.... If you feel these article are in need of improvement, feel free to expand.... but i don't see any issue with them being stubs..... it's not required for an article to be a mile long... some times a simple, straight forward, answer is all that is need.--cooljuno411 01:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is currently 7 sentences long with cite tags on the three lede sentences. It's not my job to improve that article but I did correct one of the sourced statements to match what the source stated. Apologies if these are unrelated subjects and I missed that, Undefined sexual orientation should likely be either 1. deleted, 2. merged somewhere appropriate or 3. Improved greatly so there is no question it belongs. Perceived sexual orientation is in a similar arena that is is unclear what the article is actually about and sourcing doesn't clarify that. Being a stub isn't the problem but being so short and unclear at the same time are. You know what you mean but myself and others do not, it follows then that our readers likely will fail to understand the significance as well. These are reasons to improve the writing and sourcing. These same reasons are why I feel its inclusion on this template is premature at best. If it were well written and well-sourced then our discussion would center on has it reached an acceptable level of helpfulness to our readers' understanding of sexual orientation to include on this template and if so, where. -- Banjeboi 02:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, though i disagree with you opinion of a merger, what would you propose these articles be merged in to. I personally have not read an article that would accommodate these ideas. And perceived sexual orientation may be a bit hard to understand, i guess for some, but i do not find any difficulties or issues with undefined sexual orientation, it is quite straight forward. Like is said, there is not issue with a straight to the point, stub, article. And i would like to know why you would want to delete undefined sexual orientation, it is not a concept solely known to me. Watch The Real World?, one of the current cast members even says that she prefers not to label her sexual orientation... it is even stated in her biography, which can be read here The Real World: Brooklyn#Cast, her name is Sarah. You can even watch the after show where she says it.--cooljuno411 02:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Undefined sexual orientation should likely be merged - both sentences - to sexual orientation, possibly to this section. If the content there grows it may then make sense to create an article. Likewise perceived sexual orientation should be branched out from there as sexual orientation is the parent article. I'm not saying merge the perceived article but look at the main and see where that content would fit. It's a valid concept but it's just not very clear presently and needs work. -- Banjeboi 03:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Obvious POV fork from an agenda driven editor. I'd suggest any and all who come to weigh in on this issue, have a look at cooljuno411's edit history, including his blocks for the POV pushing and edit warring in regards to this matter and other related matters. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 07:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That, at least in my opinion, has no credibility to support removing an edit from an article which clearly has to do with this template..... 2/3 of the article's name being "sexual orientation" and all.--cooljuno411 09:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good thing we aren't discussing removing an edit from an article here but instead are discussing whether or not to include an article in this template. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support inclusion in template (or merge article itself into parent) - As long as article exists, I don't see why it shouldn't be included - as it is specifc to "sexual orientation" (as long as this doesn't creep into adding all kinds of -phobia's of specific orientations also). If there is an issue over whether the article is a POV fork (remember WP:AGF, guys) or shouldn't be a stand-alone article, then maybe the article itself should be proposed for merging into Sexual orientation. (my 2 cents) Outsider80 (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is we aren't having an AfD discussion here - this is about including on the template which shouldn't be a repository for articles that are in this bad of shape. I personally don't like to delete articles but perhaps it should be sent to merge or delete instead. In any case, no, too problematic to represent a real benefit to understanding sexual orientation even if it is now named 2/3's the way there. articles called Misunderstood sexual orientation or Confusing sexual orientation also doesn't work here. We are trying to offer, on this template, a series of articles that provide reasonably well sourced and written content. This is not that. -- Banjeboi 20:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  - Not proposing a merge, just saying that if various commenters' rationale is that article itself is a POV fork or should not exist, then they should AFD/propose-merge of it. (which would make this whole discussion moot). This is the first I have heard of article quality being a factor in inclusion in templates. Personally I am skeptical of this article's survivability/notability on its own, but that is besides the point for this discussion (and you are more familiar w/ article rescue potential than me). anyhow. Outsider80 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    - This template in particular has had some heavy edit-warring so I think a higher standard for inclusion wa called for Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 7 shows what the latest discussions looked like and article quality has remained a concern. Article quality was also confirmed at ANI regarding this article as being a valid concern. I have sent to merge so hopefully this can be easily resolved in that regard. -- Banjeboi 20:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support inclusion in template. It appears to be entirely relevant. Aleta ^Sing 20:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Relevancy is not the issue, article quality is the problem, I'm nominating for merge which might resolve this. -- Banjeboi 20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  - Well it appears it has been resolved... The majority want it to be added to the template. I will be reinstating to the template by Monday afternoon (my time). This talk has gone on for quite some time now, more than THREE (3) days.--cooljuno411 23:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    - And I will be removing it Monday afternoon (my time). A consensus hasn't been reached and until one is, it shall be left alone. 3 days isn't the law, it's a guideline. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose addition for now. It seems to be non-notable neologism. All because someone pairs the adjective with the noun occasionally does not make it a good subject for an article. I could find sources using "Rumoured sexual orientation" or "Immoral sexual orientation", but they do not need articles. Until that article proves the notability of the term, and has more content than could easily be summaried in one paragraph in sexual orientation, it is premature to add it to a widely visible template in which space is at a premium.Yobmod (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

oppose for now. There is an ongoing discussion to merge this article with the general sexual orientation article. I think a merger makes sense. If that article grows too big at that point we can discuss breaking it up into smallter linked articles, and of course, at that time, any related articles should certainly go on the template. We need to distinguish between two separate issues: (1) should two articles be merged? and (2) should all discrete articles relating to sexual orientation be on the template? My own answer to both questions is "yes" but they should be answered individually. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
oppose for now, and a long time yet to come. while I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, the linked article is little more than a stub, and I see no academic, scientific, or other authoritative references on the page. and CJ: take it to wikisource, where you can opine to your heart's content. I can't believe you're still pushing this point. --Ludwigs2 01:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
oppose for now also. No need to have a crap "article", that is being nice, added to a template. --Tom 13:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Unlabeled sexual orientation

Should Unlabeled sexual orientation sexual orientation be added to Orientations section of this template?--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 04:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: This article is now currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unlabeled sexual orientation.

Support, it is important to the discussions of sexual orientations.--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 04:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
oppose (weak). 'unlabled' is not to my knowledge an orientation recognized in the conventional literature on this subject.

I'm willing to change my opinion with if proper sources can be provided, but otherwise I think the template should restrict itself to the accepted usages of the term. --Ludwigs2 05:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

""Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all."" - quote from the American Phycological Association--cooljuno411 07:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose until we find plenty of secondary sources (reliable sources) which indicate this is a necessary inclusion with sufficient weight to be presented alongside the other orientations which are already in the template. My google~fu first returned a few hundred search-engine results, but examining them more deeply revealed that there were only 44 actual results (the rest were redundantly similar to the first 44) ...and nearly all of the search-engine results were mirrors and echo-chambers of these very Wikipedia pages mentioning "unlabeled sexual orientation". This "unlabeled sexual orientation" category is only a micrometer away from Original Research, and only seems to exist as a technicality, rather than as an actual notable item of scholarly research— and doesn't even seem like a very interesting topic of gossip (to me). The template is already stuffed to the gills with all of the elaborations which have received notable academic mention, and until i actually find a textbook or a scholarly article published by a reputable researcher using the term "unlabeled sexual orientation" i am going to presume that the micrometer is quite insufficient. Maybe in the future there will be a valid reason for inclusion, but i can't find one by searching on the internet, and i will continue to find it extremely dubious unless some sexology experts present some sources. Thanks ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 05:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose with hellfire - Here we go again.. same editor, different article wanting to be included. Unlabeled sexual orientation should be merged with Pomosexual and shouldn't exist at all. As was noted in an above discussion, both Perceived sexual orientation and Undefined sexual orientation which now redirects to Unlabeled sexual orientation, were branched out of Pomosexual by the nom Cooljuno. This article, like the ones discussed above, is nothing but a POV fork. I'll also point out that the article, since unfortunately it does exist, should be in Category:Sexual orientation and that category is already linked in this template as List (category) of sexual orientations so no sense in creating redundancy. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 05:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment This appears to be no more than an attempt to lend credibility to an article that's currently in AfD. Gigs (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Unlabeled Sexual Orienation was added to AFD AFTER i posted this discussion.... it appears someone is trying to kill it before it gets on the template.--cooljuno411 07:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that article is just one more in a string of articles you've created with the sole purpose of changing the definition of sexual orientation. please... --Ludwigs2 14:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Support inclusion, if survives AfD. Article is relevent and would add alternative viewpoints / diversity to the sexual orientation series of articles. Could use more academic sources, but it still is relevent to the template's topic, and does have some sourcing (though could use more). Article creator's previous articles should not be used to pre-judge this one. This one actually has a little larger scope than the previous articles. Wikignome0529 (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Unlabelled is not an orientation, it is a lack of use of the common terms for orientation. It is no more valid than adding "None of your business" as an orientation.YobMod 13:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- LOlz... you clearly don't understand.... it's not "none of your business what my orientation is", it is "i don't label myself with an orientation because you look silly and stupid when you do. Try reading the article?????"--cooljuno411 19:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to split this discussion across two separate pages, but i've been trying to find WP:V and WP:RS to support some kind of potential inclusion; and now i've mentioned the fruitless results in a comment on the AFD discussion page for Unlabeled sexual orientation. If we can't even contrive a legitimate article about the topic of unlabeled sexual orientation then i don't see how we can include it in our templates. Thank you ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 11:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, i have done some cleanup[3] on another related template[4] where Cooljuno411 was trying to circumvent the edit-war and deletion consensus. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 02:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

i cannot even begin to discuss and critique this article/ submission. it is subjective at best and uninformed at worst. better than i are challenging the content. i support them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angibaby (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Maybe we should place a note at the top of the talk page saying that controversial subject that requires a moderate and restrictive set of inclusion criteria, so that people will get the idea? I have been fending off the inclusion of odd, sundry, and always dubious categories on this template since I started editing wikipedia. 'sexual orientation' is not a catch-all concept for any sexual behavior that anyone decides they would like to reify and legitimize. --Ludwigs2 19:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jkb08, 18 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Showing an image of a pedophile penetrating a youth, even if shown on an artifact, is unacceptable within the framework of an encyclopedia. Jkb08 (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved to user talk page for discussion; not sure which article they refer to. Chzz ► 22:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

two new manifestations?

An editor has added Pomosexual and Monosexual to the template without discussing this on the talk page. As it says, "This template is included on a number of pages. Before making any content changes, please discuss them on the talk page first." This not having been done, I've deleted them, and invited the editor and anyone else to make the case for their addition here. Herostratus (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

just as a thought, a checkuser might be in order... --Ludwigs2 04:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I must apologize I added pomosexual and monosexual. I would like to apologize. I do however think that at least monosexual should be added however. Any other thoughts. Again apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 04:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The (oft-challenged) consensus on this page is that we should restrict the entries to the best known and most broadly accepted orientations. The problem is that there is an endless stream of idiosyncratic classifications that people would like to see established as 'orientations' as a matter of legitimacy. it might be feasible to include those on articles relating to sexual orientation (where proper discussion and the use of scholarly sources is possible), but they can't really be included on a navigation template because there is no room for fine-tuning or balancing on a template. Pomosexual has been excluded because it's a neologism that refers to something which isn't itself an orientation, but rather an avoidance of being labeled (technically speaking, I am a pomosexual because I'm a standard hetero male who dislikes being referred to as hetero); Monosexual is a little-known neologism that merely points to non-bisexuals (and is likely a term-of-derision used by bisexuals to refer to all those stuffy gays and straights). Neither term is really sufficiently in the common parlance to include on the template.

I suppose it's worth opening a discussion on whether we should add a 'neologisms' section to the template to include terms like this, but it goes against standard wikipedia usage (and possibly against policy). We don't, for instance, want to give fetishists such as pedophiles and zoophiles an opening to establish themselves on wikipedia as equivalent in social and scholarly acceptance to gays and straights (fetishes are not the same as orientations; the first are considered diagnosable illnesses whereas the latter are more or less normal differences in behavior). We need to let conventional and scholarly understandings lead the way on this. --Ludwigs2 05:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

How would adding monosexuality lead the way for a neologism that allowed pedophiles and fetishists. First of all even if pedophilia could be expressed in an orientation it couldn't be a sexual orientation as sexual orientation is by definition based on the sex of the people involved not the age. Also intersexs and genderqueers who were attracted to one gender would be called monosexuals because they couldn't be heterosexuals because which gender is opposite of them? They also couldn't be considered homosexual because that would mean that they were attracted to those of the same gender which would be other intersex and genderqueer individuals. They also couldn't be considered bisexuals because they might not be attracted to both the main genders. You see the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 04:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a causal statement. we need to draw the line somewhere, and the appropriate place (for wikipedia) to draw the line is with commonly accepted terminology used in reliable sources. The article on monosexuality itself says the term is little used and disputed, right? so there you go. --Ludwigs2 17:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I would argue however that polysexuality was used less frequently than monosexuality. Polysexual dosn't appear in one book on sexual orientation that I can think of. Pansexuality rarely does as well. Yet no one argues that they should be included. Wouldn't it be fair to include monosexuality as it refers to people not only who are straight and gay but can refer as I said above to a person who is intersex and therefore neither heterosexual nor homosexual but just attracted to a single different gender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Then we may want to consider removing polysexual and pansexual. II'll look into it. --Ludwigs2 12:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that I would tend to support this. From the article lead of Pasexuality: "Some pansexuals suggest that... gender and sex are insignificant or irrelevant in determining whether they will be sexually attracted to others. For others, an individual's sex, gender expression, or gender identity can be a key factor of attraction..."; sounds pretty overly all-inclusive to me. And Polysexuality can be pretty much subsumed under Bisexuality. Herostratus (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

propose to remove polysexuality as a sexual orientation from the template

The polysexuality article does not claim that polysexuality is a sexual orientation. So, I propose to remove it from this template. It's not in the companion (similar) template and both should be alike. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should go ahead and remove both it and pansexual, as discussed above. since this idea has been floating for a while now, I'll be bold and do it. --Ludwigs2 05:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.113.248.37, 22 May 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add "pansexuality" back to the orientations section because somebody deleted it. Wikipedia is neutral and should not discriminate pansexuals. Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pansexuality

46.113.248.37 (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: What should and should not be included in this template has been extensively discussed already. Please familiarise yourself with the talk page archives linked above, and if you have anything new to add, feel free to discuss further here. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Androphilia and gynephilia

I propose we add Androphilia and gynephilia under Gender-based alternative concepts, which is marked as the place to list "Gender-based systems such as in non-westernized and pre-westernized societies." This terminology is used in published work for describing non-Western societies like the Samoan fa'afafine. Jokestress (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been a couple of weeks since I made this proposal. I will wait another day or so, then I will add it to the template. Jokestress (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality and heterosexuality is pretty much already those two things. For example: A gay is an androphile and a female heterosexual is also an androphile. I rater see those listed as sexual preferences page or something similar.Alusky (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Zoosexuality

I feel that this template is incomplete without the inclusion of zoosexuality. There is growing evidence that what has been referred to as "zoophilia" (i.e. a paraphilia) is actually a distinct sexual orientation. Paraphilias tend to refer to non-living objects, whereas zoosexuality refers to living, sentient beings. So although zoosexuality is technically still listed as a paraphilia, its status as a paraphilia is crumbling. In this link, it describes how Beetz believes that zoophilia should be referred to as "zoosexuality". Consider also this link, which describes how zoophilia is being re-classified.

Zoosexuality is unique among paraphilias in that it involves sentient/living beings and not non-living objects; whereas paraphilias such as pedophilia tend to focus on aspects of something (i.e. one's age), zoosexuality does not focus on an aspect of something -- it is simply the sexual attraction to other species. And considering that there are many subcategories of it (cynosexuality, equinosexuality, etc.) it seems only fair to have at least some mention of zoosexuality somewhere on the template. Because of zoosexuality's unusual status which sets it apart from normal paraphilias, its inclusion in the template would not cause a "slippery slope" effect (the template would not begin to fill with up with paraphilias).

By the way, I am in agreement with Jokestress about the Adnrophilia/gynephilia issue, and I agree with the above request concerning pansexuality. What pansexuality, zoosexuality and gynephilia all have in common is that they do not focus on an aspect of something, therefore they should be included. Plateau99 (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To be listed as a sexual orientation, it should first be a sexual orientation, meaning recognized in the mental health field as one. To my knowledge (and I skimmed one reference you provided (except for pages not displayed by Google) and the other appears to be an abstract), neither zoosexuality nor pansexuality is a sexual orientation. If you know of adequate sourcing that establishes either as a sexual orientation, please post accordingly. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nick Levinson. I've watched this template over the years and there's a tendency for people to throw in all sort of stuff, and I tend to be skeptical of that. Plateau99's argument is rational and maybe its true, but still just his opinion, I think. (There's also the issue of notability; I'd argue that an entry that might otherwise be allowable shouldn't be included if it applies to a vanishingly small population. That's arguable, and whether it applies here I don't know.) Herostratus (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the zoosexual population is actually quite large and isn't "vanishingly small": after all, there are about 900,000 people on the zoosexual website known as "beastforum.com". The only reason the zoosexual population seems small is because bestiality is taboo and nobody discusses it in public. Plateau99 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

900,000? Herostratus (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As I stated at Talk:Sexual orientation, see the Other sexual orientations must be mention too discussion for why we do not list zoophilia as a sexual orientation. Nick went over this extensively in that debate. And as I myself recently stated: "Most zoosexuals are sexually attracted to humans. And "sexual orientation" is not only mostly studied in the context of humans, but is usually designated to humans. There is significant disagreement among researchers about applying it to non-human animals. If a person is only sexually attracted to non-human animals (provide a source for that because I've never seen it reliably reported), that would not be considered a legitimate sexual orientation by researchers. They would label that a paraphilia and/or a mental disorder (notice I stated "or," not that it would definitively be labeled the latter). The lead [of the Sexual orientation article] is quite clear on what is a sexual orientation, and that authoritative American Psychological Association source is stricter, saying "men and women," not "males and females." And that is exactly what I mean about the term usually applying to humans. Researchers do not designate zoosexuality as a sexual orientation."

But regarding pansexuality? Giving pansexuality a listing is complicated, because to most people...it is already covered by bisexuality. It's why we mention it in the lead of the Bisexuality article, and why bisexuality is mentioned in the Pansexuality article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sexual orientation implies fairly wide social acceptance (not necessarily majoritarian but still substantial) in contrast to paraphilia etc., the latter suggesting a need for treatment that the former does not suggest, so that an appropriate source for a determination of a list of sexual orientations would be a major psychology organization. I've recently heard of another study that, to me, points in the direction that sexual orientation relies on social acceptance: that the public's acceptance of homosexuality goes up because many lesbian/gay couples now raise children. I don't think we're on the verge of that discussion regarding zoosexuality.

On pansexuality as differing from bisexuality in the realm of sexual orientation, if that's based on there being human genders other than the two generally recognized, I don't think the major psychology organizations agree on that premise, thus pansexuality would imply the existence of something generally denied and thus isn't likely to be recognized as a sexual orientation.

The appropriate people to convince about the existence of a sexual orientation are major psychology organizations. Wikipedia is not a lobbyist. You may contact psychology organizations directly.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

To add on to what Nick stated, I also want to point out, like another editor did on the Sexual orientation talk page, that sexual orientation is largely based on biological sex/gender attraction. And I already made clear that such attraction is usually made in the context of "humans being attracted to humans" (plenty of researchers would rather not prescribe non-human animals with a sexual orientation, and certainly not people being attracted to them as "a sexual orientation"). Therefore, paraphilias are distinct because they are covering sexual attractions not simply based on "whether this is a male/man or female/woman." With pedophilia, for example, which has been compared to a sexual orientation by experts, defining it is not about whether the child is a boy or a girl... Whether or not the child is a boy or a girl is about sexual orientation, and, as such, there are heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual pedophiles. Therefore, defining pedophilia is about the sexual preference -- whether or not it's a prepubescent child or an adult.

I also want to point out that how large or small the population is for a particular "sexual direction" is not what gets something labeled a sexual orientation. The incidence of asexuality is commonly reported as 1%, and yet it is still getting recognition as a sexual orientation by researchers. While zoophilia, which there is clearly a larger incidence of, is not. This no doubt also stems from what Nick stated above about social acceptance. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have done extensive research about this topic, so allow me to point out some mistakes in your comments and correct them before I state my opinion.

@Plateau99

1-You mention that zoophilia is a synonym of zoosexuality. That is kinda incorrect, Zoophiles (the psychological term) can refer to zoosexuals or to bestialists.

2-You mention that zoophilia is "special" because we are attracted to living being which makes this paraphilia a sexuality. That is incorrect, It is irrelevant if a paraphilias refer to living being or objects, because there is a sexual orientations for objects, there is no rule that a sexual orientation must only be for living beings, objectum sexuality fits the diagnosis of what is a sexual orientation. Objectum sexuality, zoosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, all of them fir the sexual orientations diagnosis and the paraphilia diagnosis.

3-Is incorrect to think that zoosexuality is not unique, homosexuality is also a paraphilia that involves sentient beings.

4-Pansexuality is not a sexual orientation, it is instead a sexual preference (or lack of sexual preferences) pansexuality is a ramification of bisexuality and so, it should NOT be listed as a sexual orientation.

@Nick Levinson

1-There are 3 to 5 recent studies (made by people with PH.Ds in sexology and psychology) that reached the conclusion that zoosexuality is a valid sexual orientation. There are ZERO studies that have reach the conclusion that zoosexuality is NOT a sexual orientation. Evidence is against your opinion, if you have evidence that zoosexuality is not a sexual orientation, please provide it.

2-"Sexual orientation implies fairly wide social acceptance"←That is 100% FALSE, homosexuality was not socially accepted 2000 years ago and was punished with death in all the world and it was a sexual orientation 2000 years ago. Social acceptance has nothing to do with sexual orientations. If it fits the diagnosis of sexual orientation, it means that it is a sexual orientation, doesn't matter if 99.9% of the world don't accept it as a sexual orientation, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE out weighs personal ignorant/bias opinion of the masses.

@Herostratus

1-The amount of homosexuals and zoosexuals in the human population is estimated to be some where between 10% and 5%, they both share decent notability. By the way it is a "Self-Fulfilling Prophecy" to say that it doesn't have enough notability and that it should not be added for that reason. Imagine if wikipedia existed 100 years ago and people where trying to add homosexuality to this template and people where saying "sorry, homosexuality has not enough notability to be added" that would mean homosexuality would have never pick up notability because wikipedia and other sites do not let it pick notability.

@Flyer22

1-"sexual orientation is largely based on biological sex/gender attraction"←Sexual orientation is based on the species you are attracted, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, all of them are attracted to humans. Being attracted to an homosapines is the sexual orientation. Being attracted to the same gender or opposite gender is a ramification of the sexual orientation know as sexual preferences. For example, heterosexuals have a sexual orientation for humans where their sexual preference is the opposite sex. A gay pedophile had a sexual orientation for humans where their sexual preference is same gender and young age. Zoosexuality is a sexual orientation by itself, inside of it there are preferences for same gender, opposite gender, young age, different colors, hairs looks, different species, etc.

2-Asexuality is not a sexual orientation, it is the lack of a sexual orientation, that can't be sexual orientation, it doesn't fit the definition of sexual orientation. For example, an apple is a fruit, an orange is a fruit, you can't say that the lack of fruits in a bowl is a fruit. There is a definition of sexual orientation, what ever fits that definition becomes a sexual orientation, if it doesn't fit the definition, it can't be a sexual orientation, asexuality does not fit the definition of sexual orientation. Zoosexuality and objectum sexuality does fit that definition.

3-"The incidence of asexuality is commonly reported as 1%, and yet it is still getting recognition as a sexual orientation by researchers."←I dare you to name one study that mentions asexuality as a sexual orientation. I can name 3 studies that mentions zoosexuality as a sexual orientation.

Now to state what I think.

There are 3 or more studies that have reach the conclusion that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation, they are not peer reviewed yet as they are new studies. But I don't see why this should be a reason to not add the information on wikipedia, I mean, you don't need a peer review study telling you that water is wet and that fire burns. IF you read the the studies about zoosexuality, is clear there is no bias, zoosexuality is a real sexual orientation, you don't need a major psychologist institutions to tell you that, just like you don't need a need major psychologist institutions to tell you that homosexuality is a sexual orientation 50 or 100 or 2000 years ago. Why not use critical thinking? Homosexuality was a sexual orientation 2000 years in the past, even if 100% of the world said it was not. Same it is with zoosexuality, evidence is clear that it is a sexual orientation from reading those studies, you don't need the consensus of major psychologist institutions or a peer review to see the obvious. Why it has to be so hard to ass TABOO information to wikipedia? Zoosexuality and objectum sexuality should be added as sexual orientation, because there is no evidence that they are not and there is evidence that they are. IF evidence says it is a sexual orientation and there is no evidence to say it is not, why can't zoosexuality or even objectum sexuality be added?Alusky (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Alusky, you may well have studied the subject more than I have. Please cite the 3–5 studies (or if already cited in Wikimedia tell us where).

Sexual orientation is characterized by, inter alia, whether the sexuality is enduring in someone and whether individuals have a community (thus the relationship to social acceptance). With reference to people two millennia ago, that raises the question of how we know whose sexuality was enduring and whether they shared a sexual community. If by the Bible, a question is whether that's a reliable source for such facts of secular humanity.

For a given sexuality, a sexual orientation can coexist with opposition entailing societally-sponsored capital punishment. Reportedly, in the U.S. (where homosexuality is recognized as a sexual orientation), homeless adolescents in one U.S. city are superproportionately homosexual because their families threw them out of their homes (perhaps on a parental thesis that "no kid of mine is a faggot") and homeless communities welcomed them. But that does not mean that a sexuality necessarily has a corresponding sexual orientation.

As far as I know, at most only four sexualities are recognized as sexual orientations, heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality (each of which is disputed as a sexual orientation but that is irrelevant to adding zoosexuality as a sexual orientation). Studies may show that people living other sexualities are psychologically well-adjusted, nondepressed, and so on, and such studies, if peer-reviewed and replicated, are probably prerequisite to recognition of the respective sexualities as sexual orientations, but are not sufficient.

Which sexual orientations, if any, existed in the distant past is a question for historians, archaeologists, and other scholars in reportable sources. It's possible, for example, that a sexual orientation used to exist and then was replaced by a taboo such that the sexual orientation no longer existed.

Your definition of sexual orientation as being principally about the species to which one is attracted, so that homosexuality, heterosexuality, etc. are merely preferences within that, runs counter to what the American Psychological Association and most other sources I've seen say. If you have a source for that definition, please cite it.

Not only don't we need a study saying that water is wet, we don't generally need any source. But that's because no one is likely to challenge that, whereas zoosexuality being a sexual orientation is almost certain to be challenged, and for that the sourcing must meet Wikipedia's standards. Peer review and replication are appropriate, as is acceptance by a national organization in an appropriate field of scholarship. There are lots of obvious facts that only some of us know and which we'd like to add, but which Wikipedia doesn't welcome. Without standards, Wikipedia would be a mess that few people would visit.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Alusky, I don't see you pointing out any mistakes in my comments and correcting them, and I'm not even about to attempt to reply to everything you stated. I will say that you should stop using the homosexuality argument. That's the same argument that pedophiles use for wanting pedophilia recognized as a sexual orientation. It does not matter that homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder. The fact is...it has been considered a valid sexual orientation for many years now, and every researcher recognizes it as one. So it goes to reason that if zoosexuality was considered a sexual orientation, then it would be recognized as a sexual orientation by researchers in this day and age. It is not, however. Not by most or even half. Just one sexologist calls it a sexual orientation in the Zoophilia article, and that is not even cited except by text. Most researchers classify it as a paraphilia. Just like most other sexual practices/preferences that are considered "abnormal" are classified as paraphilias. And make no mistake about it, zoosexuality is considered abnormal. I stand by my statement that "sexual orientation is largely based on biological sex/gender attraction." Your definition that "sexual orientation is based on the species you are attracted to," as if it is not about biological sex/gender, directly conflicts with the reliable sources found in the Sexual orientation article. Going by your definition, there would be a variety of attractions designated under "sexual orientations" based on the type of species a person is attracted to, including plant species. That is not how sexual orientation is defined. If it were, then animals would also typically be assigned a sexual orientation. They, however, are not. And your comparison to pedophilia? No, whether or not the child is a boy or a girl is the sexual orientation, which is why there are heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual pedophiles. The sexual preference is about the child being prepubescent. Pedophilia is "the sexual preference for prepubescent children," not "a sexual orientation that describes a sexual attraction to prepubescent children."

You can say asexuality is not a sexual orientation all you want, but it has been recognized as a sexual orientation by the psychological community. Not being sexually attracted to a person does not make it any less of a sexual orientation. It has to do with sexual intimacy and biological sex/gender attraction just like the other sexual orientations do; it is an orientation that encompasses little to no sexual attraction. "Sexual" is put in front of "orientation" because it has to do with a sexual direction. Asexuality deals with a sexual direction that is recognized as a sexual orientation. It also deals with romantic aspects just like the other sexual orientations. A lot of people consider asexuality abnormal, yes, but it is still recognized as a sexual orientation by the psychological community. There is nothing you can do about that.

Your repeated effort to get zoosexuality deemed a sexual orientation in the main article and template is both tiring and unproductive. There are no peer-reviewed sources to back you up on it being a legitimate sexual orientation. Where is there evidence that zoosexuality is a valid sexual orientation, especially since most zoosexuals have a sexual preference for humans? There being no evidence suggesting that it is not a sexual orientation is irrelevant. There is no evidence that being sexually attracted to stuffed animals is not a sexual orientation either. Doesn't mean it should be added as a sexual orientation. I'm going to go ahead and ask a sexologist-editor to weigh in on this, so that it can hopefully be put to rest. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for years, and I can say with assuredness that no matter what you do, this issue will likely never be put to rest. I don't know if it's the same person incarnating in different usernames, or different people, but there always seems to be someone pushing this argument. is it an effort to raise zoophilia to a more accepted status? an effort to lower conventional orientations to the level of paraphilia? who knows…

As best I understand it, an 'orientation' refers to a mutual bonding preference more than a sexual preference: It refers to the kind of person you want to have a mutual intimate relationship with. Animals and children and broccoli are excluded because animals and children and broccoli are not considered to be capable of establishing a 'mutual' relationship: no matter how much you love broccoli (or a child, or a dog) it cannot respond in the same way on the level of an equal, and so the relationship is always a power relationship rather than an intimacy relationship. That sexual power relationship is what qualifies it as a paraphilia. But that is not an argument that is going to satisfy a paraphiliac, because paraphiliacs will always insist that the object of their affections returns their affections, no matter how ludicrous that assertion might be. We're just going to have to rest on the literature here, which narrowly defines orientation in terms of heterosexuality, homosexuality, and asexuality, and stifle the debates until the literature changes. --Ludwigs2 23:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

@Nick Levinson

•Studies: "Hani Miletski Ph.D.: Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia, 2002" and "Andrea Beetz Ph.D.: Bestiality and Zoophilia (2005)" are the two studies I have read that support that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation, I'm not sure if there are more studies to support it as I haven't read those (they cost lots of money to read that I don't have) I'm a zoosexual and is annoying when people say that I don't exist. Have you read those studies?

•Inter alia? Zoosexuality is enduring and he majority have it since puberty and last for life, there is also a zoosexual community, specially in the Internet where it is safer to make friends and chat to later meet people in real life once you trust that they don't have bad intentions. By the way, it is irrelevant if a community exist or not, a sexual orientation is a sexual orientation regardless of that factor.

•If a person behabior fits the definition of sexual orientation, then that person has a sexual orientation, period.

•Well-adjusted, non-depressed, are irrelevant factors, a sexual orientation is a sexual orientation regardless of those factor. A bad adjusted depressed homosexual that rapes people is still an homosexual. If an reliable studied proves with evidence that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation, then that information should be allowed to be used for wikipedia.

•Sexual orientations don't stop being sexual orientations just because they become taboo. A sexual orientation can be a taboo and a sexual orientation at the same time. (Homosexuality was and still is Taboo, it was Taboo to 99.9% of people 2000 years ago and it still was a sexual orientation 2000 years ago, a sexual orientation is a sexual orientation regardless if it is taboo or not)

•Ignore my personal research that homosexuality and heterosexuality are just sexual preferences, I'm not interested in that topic for now.

•Those studies that I mentioned, are not peer review, but I wonder, where exactly are you reading that all information MUST be peer review to be used on wikipedia? Also, no major organization has "Un-Acepted" Beetz and Miletski studies as bias, fake or craziness, the APA paraphilia group that is working on the new DSM-5 even read their works and evaluate it as to see if they need to change anything about zoophilia in the new DSM-5, do you think they would have done that if their studies where unreliable? I been looking on wikipedia and I found this: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan."←Reading that at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

•Also: "The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, including quotations, needs a reliable source" as said here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

•And what counts as a reliable source is: "The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability ←My point is, by those standard, you can add change or add new information if the source is reliable, even if it is not a peer-reviewed publications (though that makes it even more reliable)

•Miletski study was her requirement for her PhD, they are published online and in book and cited in many places (nobody has disproved her study as bias, fake, craziness) her work was also check by the people that check her thesis (Probably with Beetz studie, it as similar) doesn't that that means that her work is reliable by wikipedia standards? APA also read her studie and didn't said it was unreliable, they took it seriously. And his work is simple, zoosexuality fits the definition of sexual orientation, so it must be a sexual orientation, you don't need to be a genius to understand that.

@Flyer22

•Is not the same argument, pedophilia is a sexual preference that derivatives from homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality so it is not a sexual orientation. If we use my personal research "that goes against the scientific consensus" a gay pedophile has a sexual orientation for humans, with a sexual preference for same sex, with a sexual preference inside of that for ages 10 to 5.

•It does matter that homosexuality was not recognized as a sexual orientation and considered a disorder. Because now with the new studies it was proven that it is a sexual orientation and rarely a sexual disorder. In the last 10 years, people have done research proving that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation and not always a sexual disorder, it is not yet recognizance by everybody as the studies are new and people think it is social suicide to do talk or do studies about zoosexuality.

•Have you read Miletski or Beetz study? If 99.9% of the world say is not a sexual orientation, but evidence says it is, then the 99.9% of people opinion is irrelevant. It doesn't mater if only one person or many has used the word zoosexual, what matter is what the evidence says.

•Yes, zoosexuality is a paraphilia and so it is homosexuality (they are both abnormal) There is no rule that says that you can't be a sexual orientation and a paraphilia at the same time.

•True, I had totally forgotten about Dendrosexuals/Dendrophiles, plants would be the main sexual orientation, sub-species of plants would be preferences. But again, this is my persona research (supported only by my critical thinking and from reading many stuff about sexuality) that "research" goes against the current scientific consensus so feel free to ignore it if you want.

•Where you read that any information added to wikipedia must be peer reviewed? I believe that the majority of wikipedia information is not peer reviewed. I think as long as the source is reliable it can be added to wikipedia. Correct?

•There is no rule that a human can't have 2 sexual orientations or more. This is certainly possible with zoosexuals who are also attracted to humans (who are also an animal species)

•"There is no evidence that being sexually attracted to stuffed animals is not a sexual orientation either. Doesn't mean it should be added as a sexual orientation?"←There is evidence that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation, that is why people is complaining that zoosexuality should be mentioned on wikipedia.

@Ludwigs2

•Yes, it is an effort to raise the awareness of zoosexuality and some paraphilias are sexual orientations so I don't know what you mean by that. Anyways, at least me, I use evidence to support my claims, don't now about what previous zoosexuals may have done in the past on wikipedia pages.

•Mutual relationships are not part of what makes something a sexual orientation, an homosexual is still a sexual orientation even if he stays virgin and never has a relationship of any kind with anyone, same goes for zoosexuals, objectosexuals, dendrosexuals.

•"That sexual power relationship is what qualifies it as a paraphilia."←And I can see you don't know NOTHING about paraphilias. "A paraphilia is characterized by sexual arousal to unconventional stimuli that are not considered to be part of normal sexual arousal patterns. Psychiatric Dictionary, Seventh Edition, by Robert Jean Campbell, M.D.; Oxford University Press; New York; 1996." Power relationships has nothing to do with something being a paraphilia or not. Though a power relationship does has something to do with a paraphilia becoming a paraphilic disorder.

•"But that is not an argument that is going to satisfy a paraphiliac, because paraphiliacs will always insist that the object of their affections returns their affections"←First, that is a Hasty generalization, second, if you are talking about pedophilia and zoophilia, animals and children can actually return affection.

•Why don't you try to do critical thinking? What is the definition of sexual orientation? What has bisexuality, homosexuality and heterosexuality in common? Are those things in common shared by zoosexual? The studies I mention have reach the conclusion that zoosexuals fit the definition of sexual orientation, that we share the same things with other sexual origination.

•I ask you too, have you read those studies? How you know zoosexuality is not a sexual orientation if you haven't disproven the studies that says it is?

Alusky (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You told Nick, "I'm a zoosexual and is annoying when people say that I don't exist." Well, duh. Pretty obvious that you are a zoosexual. But no one has said you don't exist. Saying zoosexuality is not recognized as a valid sexual orientation is not saying you don't exist. It is stating a fact, and reiterating that zoosexuality exists as a paraphilia/sexuality. And by the way, some asexuals would say you are doing the same thing to them -- denying that they exist by saying asexuality is not a sexual orientation.

You mentioned pedophilia to make a point about sexual orientation. I mentioned pedophilia to make a point about sexual orientation. The only difference is...I am right. No, we are not going by "[your] personal research."

You say "In the last 10 years, people have done research proving that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation and not always a sexual disorder"? Really? Where is this research? Yes, I have read some of Miletski's beliefs, and that is just one researcher's opinion. You keep talking about this "evidence" that isn't even recognized by the mainstream psychological community. That is what matters -- that large scale recognition. The same way that it mattered for homosexuality, since you like to cite homosexuality so much. It does matter if only one person claims it to be a sexual orientation. Wanting zoosexuality labeled a sexual orientation because of what these two researchers say is hardly any different than researchers who have suggested that pedophilia is very similar to or is a type of sexual orientation. We are not going to take that research to then assert in the template and article that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, as though this is an acceptable conclusion by most researchers and other such scholars.

Calling homosexuality a paraphilia and abnormal goes against everything the mainstream psychological community has to say about it. And the more you say it, the more you lose credibility with me. Because, as someone who acts as well-versed in these topics as you do, you should know that homosexuality is no longer considered paraphilic or abnormal by experts in this field (not by most of them anyway). That is why it was taken out of the DSM. And with as much as you cite that fact, one would think you wouldn't still be asserting "Yeah, but it's still abnormal." Your belief that "There is no rule that says that you can't be a sexual orientation and a paraphilia at the same time."? Just doesn't hold up.

"Peer-reviewed" asserts non-original research and/or consensus on the part of the researcher's findings. And that is extremely important when deeming something a sexual orientation. Otherwise, a bunch of things would be listed as a sexual orientation in the main article and template...all because one researcher has claimed that it is. Peer-reviewed sources are always supposed to be the main sources one should use for mental health, physical health, and sexual orientation topics. If you ask any regular editor at WP:MEDS or WP:PSYCHOLOGY, that is what they'd say. The Peer review article explains why peer review is so important.

"There is no rule that a human can't have 2 sexual orientations or more."? That is... I'll just say I disagree. The only "two sexual orientations" aspect I'd agree with is bisexuality (heterosexuality and homosexuality rolled up into one).

"There is evidence that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation." No, there are suggestions/opinions that it is one, which is why the people complaining that zoosexuality should be mentioned as a sexual orientation on Wikipedia have provided no true evidence. Citing Miletski is not evidence, for the reasons I stated above. You make it sound like a bunch of people have been at Wikipedia campaigning for zoosexuality to be deemed a sexual orientation. It has only been a select few (you included). And I have no doubt that one or all of you are the same person under a different user name. The ones complaining only want zoosexuality recognized as a sexual orientation for the same reasons that Ludwigs2 stated above. You said to Ludwigs2, "How you know zoosexuality is not a sexual orientation if you haven't disproven the studies that says it is?" That is absurd reasoning. One does not have to disprove a researcher's assertion that something is a sexual orientation in order for it to not be considered one.

As I stated on my talk page: Sexual orientation is not only about sexual attraction but romantic attraction as well. Most asexuals have romantic attractions to whichever sex/gender. You want studies calling asexuality a sexual orientation? There is a source in the Sexual orientation article (first located in the lead) that we use to assert that asexuality has recently been recognized as a sexual orientation based on studies. And there are more in the Asexuality article, some of which show asexuality was recognized as a sexual orientation before "recently." Though asexuality has been studied far less than the other sexual orientations (heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality), when researchers do discuss it...they almost always designate it under "sexual orientation"...either by their own definition or by the participants' (see page 349). Contrast that to zoosexuality, which is almost always designated under "paraphilia," no matter if the individual were to describe it as a sexual orientation. All of this is what I mean by "has been recognized as a sexual orientation by the psychological community."

Do not continue this discussion at my talk page. I do not want to debate with you your beliefs about sexual orientation and sexuality, and do not need to discuss this with you in three different places (here, the article talk page, and my talk page). The bottom line is...you have not given us ample reason to list zoosexuality as a sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said: not going to go away no matter what we do… Alusky, you prove my point precisely where you say "Mutual relationships are not part of what makes something a sexual orientation"; that shows that you are thinking in purely sexual terms (i.e., in terms of sexual preferences or paraphilias), rather than in terms of the more complex relationship issues involved in an orientation. At any rate, the place to debate this is not here on the template. make the argument for the editors on the sexual orientation page: if you can get the material added in over there, we'll be forced to update the template. Good luck! --Ludwigs2 17:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The most he can get in the main article is to have it mentioned in one of the sections that two researchers have suggested that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation; it certainly wouldn't mean that the template should be updated, per everything stated against it above. Flyer22 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I just think it's pointless to have the argument here, since there is where any changes would need to happen.--Ludwigs2 18:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with moving the discussion to Talk:Sexual orientation and plan to post there shortly. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the other two sexualities be added back?

Polysexuality and Pansexuality aren't listed. I've found that odd since people do consider them sexual orientations, especially those who identify as them. We have Asexual but why not Polysexual and Pansexual? I've checked the previous archives and it seems they were taken out due to the page not saying they're orientations; I find both pages to be stubs though. There must be some research on either one, like there is for Asexuality. Macintosh Grapes (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you find good sourcing that either one is a sexual orientation, go right ahead and add it to either article and then to this template. Note that a sexuality and a sexual orientation are not the same phenomenon, and that the latter is usually by professional agreement on premises. Both are already covered by bisexuality or rely on an acceptance of there being three or more human genders, on which point there is not much professional agreement, but please go ahead with your research in case others are wrong. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Polysexuality and pansexuality are sexual preferences, they are not sexual orientations.Alusky (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Its similar how people don'T consider zoo sexuality an orientation. DoctorHver (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there evidence that Asexuality is a sexual orientation?

I looked through the articles and don't see reliable independent sources supporting that claim. At best, it seems to be a fringe opinion. Both Asexuality and sexual orientation mention that it is, but in both articles it is supported by one primary source, a research study published in 2004 that makes a vague claim. No sources fulfilling the requirements of reliable sources for medical articles are used. I would just like to see the evidence. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As I stated to MathewTownsend at Talk:Asexuality#"Sexual orientation" in hatnote, I'm not seeing how the Contemporary Sexuality source ("Asexuality gets more attention, but is it a sexual orientation?") is a primary source. Primary sources are sources such as AVEN. The Contemporary Sexuality source features various researchers debating whether or not asexuality should be considered a sexual orientation. It is not a primary source, and neither is the Prause source. There is also the "Toward a conceptual understanding of asexuality" source by Bogaert. All of these sources now back the line in the Sexual orientation article that says: though asexuality is increasingly recognized as a fourth category. They show that asexuality is recognized as a sexual orientation category by some researchers. That is all these sources are supporting in the Asexuality article: That asexuality is recognized as a sexual orientation by some researchers. The lead says "While some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation, others do not.", not "Asexuality is a sexual orientation." I only started [that section at Talk:Asexuality] because I find it odd not to mention "sexual orientation" in the hatnote when asexuality is already listed as a sexual orientation in the Sexual orientation article and template. [The Asexuality article] is not saying that it is definitively a sexual orientation [and neither is the Sexual orientation article]...except for the template that is listed [t]here (and the category at the bottom of the article, if you count that). Yes, sexual orientation is "an attraction to another person." Asexuality is also about attraction; it is about little or no sexual attraction. This is why it is debated as a sexual orientation by researchers. I don't see the Sexual orientation article contradicting asexuality. I see it as mainly discussing heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. And this is because of what I just stated above -- the debate, which is discussed in the Sexual orientation and etiology section. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding here. Please see WP:MEDRS. When it comes to research articles, a primary source is an individual study or research endevor conducted by an individual researcher or group of researchers. It presents raw data, and analyzes it, then presents original conclusions. Other primary sources are opinion pieces where an author expresses opinions but doesn't provide a review of the literature showing the current findings in the field. A secondary source is a review article that summarizes the current research in the field. It examines many studies are comes to conclusions based on an analysis of many studies, based on what the majority of studies support. One study can be way off base. One author's opinions can be way off base. If used at all in an article, it must be supported by secondary sources. It is just one researcher's findings or one author's opinions. That is why they are not reliable sources. Something like AVEN is just a self-published source and really can't be used at all, except to cite uncontroversial facts about AVEN itself and not considered a reliable source for any other information. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

MathewTownsend, I am already aware of WP:MEDRS. I would have to be, working on articles such as these. In any case, the sources I added are supporting the line in the Sexual orientation article that asexuality is starting to be recognized as a fourth sexual orientation category, and the line in the Asexuality article that some researchers consider asexuality to be a sexual orientation. I also realize that you must have been originally talking about this Bogaert source when you started talking about primary sources. My main point is that you are focusing on one finding. I am not speaking of findings. I am speaking of what is debated among researchers, backed by reliable sources. Does the Asexuality article say that asexuality is definitively a sexual orientation? No. It says that it is considered a sexual orientation by some researchers. Are you saying that this cannot be mentioned and thoroughly investigated in the Asexuality article? If so, I do not see why...since this debate is supported by reliable sources. And, yes, AVEN counts as WP:PRIMARY; it's only used in this article for things that primary sources are okay for. AVEN itself is also cited in reliable sources, so its article can most definitely be expanded beyond its own sources. I am bringing editors in from WP:MED to weigh in on this matter, since they know better than anyone when it comes to topics about sourcing such as this. Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea to bring in editors from WP:MED. I have no opinion one way or another whether Asexual should be included as a sexual orientation. I was only going on the sources provided. Just to let you know that I am neutral on the subject, though what the American Psychology Association thinks does sway me a little but not completely. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Mathew. I see and I do applaud you for wanting to make sure Wikipedia is accurate on these things. Like I stated, in the GA review...I briefly questioned asexuality being included in this template since asexuality is not yet considered a sexual orientation among most researchers (and we don't know if it ever will be). But I figured general consensus is that it should be included because some researchers consider it one, and, when we describe sexual orientation in the Sexual orientation article, are we not going to mention that some people are sexually attracted to neither sex (not point to the Asexuality article)? We'll see what others think. Flyer22 (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Some researchers differ on how many sexual orientations they count because they use counts for different purposes. A study on hormonal determination counted only two sexual orientations because only two were relevant, whereas psychologists and public policy analysts may not be willing to be limited to two. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Great point! Very true. So determining what is subsumed under sexual orientation depends on the researcher's purpose. One shoe doesn't fit all here. Perhaps a suggestion that when adding researcher's point of view on the number of sexual orientations, a mention of the researcher's reason for employing categories of sexual orientation in the study is in order. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not such a great point, actually. Individual researchers may make divergent assertions, but there's always a standard for the discipline and that's what we should be reaching for. The problem with asexuality is that it is unclarified. unlike active sexuality - which is fairly well (if loosely) categorized as orientation, preference, paraphilia, etc. - psychologists still deal with asexuality on a case-by-case basis. Whether or not the source we have is sufficient to include it in the list on a pro-tem basis is debatable (I tend to think not, personally, but I haven't looked into it deeply), but it hasn't been specifically included of excluded, and it's not really a hot-topic political issue the active sexuality always is. --Ludwigs2 17:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

So is it a good idea to include it in this template? It is included now. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

<shrug> I'll look into it. --Ludwigs2 20:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This is why I basically feel that it's best that we include asexuality in the template: There are some individuals who say they feel no sexual attraction to either sex, and researchers have created a category for these individuals as early as Alfred Kinsey, per the Kinsey scale. Asexuality is rare, which is why it hasn't received as much attention and has only recently started to receive more attention in the last few years. When researchers encounter asexuals during their research or when seeking out this group specifically, they are more so inclined to identify them as asexual or let them identify themselves that way...as seen in this Prause source (see page 347 for an example). Are we just going to have the template state that people are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, same sex, or both, when there is a group that is attracted to neither? If asexuality is not a sexual orientation, then what is it? Just an aspect of sexuality, a sexual disorder? I believe the general consensus is that asexuality is not a disorder, but I'm not sure. The point is...even though researchers are still debating this, they have acknowledged asexuality as that box grouping people who feel little to no sexual attraction, and some of them have termed it a sexual orientation. This fourth category exists in research fields, as shown by the sources I have provided above. Having asexuality in the template isn't like having pansexuality, polysexuality or zoosexuality there. Pansexuality and polysexuality are subsumed under bisexuality by researchers, because they are more about sexual/romantic attractions to more than one gender/gender identity. And zoosexuality isn't about sexual attraction to either sex, but rather about sexual attraction to non-human animals, and is classified as a paraphilia.

I have also posted a note about this discussion at Talk:Sexual orientation to hopefully get some more opinions (hopefully, not from those proposing that zoosexuality should be added to the template as well). WP:MED is currently ignoring this discussion (as they often do when it concerns sexual topics), as though this is not a medical/health issue. Like I stated there, "asexuality is not just a sexology topic. Like all sexual orientations and sexualities, it has to do with mental and sexual health... Consensus on sexual orientation and sexualities are made by both the psychological and medical community, and the two communities greatly overlap." But oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Templates are, I think, allowed wider leeway than articles in what to include, specifically because their space is short for each entry, as is also true for lists and indexes. Typically, the reader of a templated list goes to an article to see how relevant it is to their question. Omission prevents that. Thus, in a marginal case, inclusion is better. Pansexuality is not marginal and zoosexuality is even farther.

On counts used by researchers, in my limited reading (not a fair cross-section of expertise), in research articles and to some extent in textbooks (less so in lay books), most researchers do not explain the background of other researchers' determinations that are not central to their own investigations. They rely on others' conclusions, but don't explore their bases. Thus, in this context, they take a count as a given and proceed from there. That different researchers rely on different counts for different purposes, especially when they're from different fields, is usually not of much concern to any of them in print unless they decide to challenge each others' work.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Besides that, if it's not in the template...it should also be questionable to describe it as one of the sexual orientation categories in the Sexual orientation article. If we aren't going to say heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual...and asexual in the template, why should we say so in the lead and lower body of the article on this? Sigh. I vote for inclusion regarding asexuality, per what I stated above, and don't have much more to state on the subject than that. No doubt we'd get objections possibly every month or close to it if we were to remove it. Asexuals have been offended enough. I don't feel that we should add to that by essentially saying "You don't exist as a sexual orientation." If there was nothing to suggest that it is a sexual orientation, or if it were highly controversial to include it, then I'd see the point. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, templates have less leeway than articles, because they are prominently placed and provide no opportunity for careful NPOV balancing. If asexuality is not reasonably firmly established as an orientation, it should be removed; the only question in my mind is what its standing is. The problem (as I see it) is that no one has (so far as I know) set up diagnostic criteria: when a client presents asexuality, there's no established mechanism for distinguishing asexuality (as an orientation) from asexuality (as a symptom of something like depression or a personality disorder). Asexuality is generally treated as a symptom, but since it is a more-or-less innocuous issue, few clinicians will focus on it unless the client expresses anxiety over it (which someone who was truly asexual would not do).

What's really missing here is a comprehensive theory of human sexuality, but there's nothing to do about that...--Ludwigs2 00:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with including it in the template, in that we're not really saying anything more than "since you're interested in this article, you might also be interested in these other articles". Well, sort of. That's a simplification and we don't want to put anything in there, but the above conversation convinces me that it's probably valid in this case. Herostratus (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:MED.

The purpose of a template like this is to provide navigation aids to the reader, not to provide the definitive definition of any item. As such, the standard for inclusion is very similar to what you list under ==See also==. I don't believe that it's important to include Asexuality, but I also don't think that it's a problem to include it. (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm popping back here to state that WhatamIdoing is with WP:MED (for those who don't know), not just someone watching that project page, and also commented here, where I replied. Thanks again, WhatamIdoing. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

To comment on WhatamIdoing's statement about the threshold for inclusion, I do feel that the definition is a part of it. By that, I mean that the Sexual orientation template serves as a template for recognized sexual orientations. And by "recognized," I mean acknowledged as such by various researchers. As stated, including pansexuality, polysexuality and/or zoosexuality would be different in this regard. The "Orientation" part of the Sexual orientation template is for including sexual orientations after all. If we were to include pansexuality or polysexuality, the "Gender-based alternative concepts" part of the template is where they would fit best/most accurately. Zoosexuality is a no for the reasons already gone over on this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I see it a header template is not just a 'see also', but serves a purpose similar to an introduction or outline for the article. Just the way we would not use an entirely unrelated lead image for an article, the header template should not contain entirely unrelated material, and certainly should not be used to advance a cause that's not reflected in reliable sources. --Ludwigs2 02:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If template lists are more restrictive than articles because of NPOV risks, then we should rename this template to something like Sexual Orientation and Related Issues, so readers can find what they're looking for. (If I'm right that these lists may be more inclusive, then this is probably why.) My computer time is limited now, but sometime I'd like to look up the policy/guideline on narrower/wider inclusion. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Ludwigs, and that is what I was stressing. The template is certainly not for everything that is considered a sexual orientation. It must be supported by more than just a few researchers (and by "few," I mean the number that support zoosexuality as a sexual orientation, or anything close to that number). And I don't think WhatamIdoing was saying any unrelated (and no See also section should include an unrelated topic anyway) or any ole related issue should be listed in the template, but I wanted to comment on it because WhatamIdoing's comment could be taken that way. WhatamIdoing may want to clarify his/herself what he/she meant.

Nick, I wouldn't say that we need to rename the template. I mean, it is divided into different sections, which is why I pointed out the "Orientations" and "Gender-based alternative concepts" sections. Pansexuality and polysexuality could fit there if we wanted to compromise on those topics, just like androphilia and gynephilia are already listed there. Flyer22 (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: Debate about asexuality as a sexual orientation was also had at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Asexuality as a main sexual orientation. This debate concerns whether or not asexuality is a main sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the template being discussed

Changes to the template, whether to include or exclude Asexuality, is being discussed here. Consensus is needed. Someone963852 (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: It is the result of the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Inclusion in sexual orientation template. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sexology

Queer studies

Environment and sexual orientation

Innate bisexuality

heterosexual-homosexual continuum

current "orientations" section in violation wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Lists

Add a see also section?

add Perceived sexual orientation to the see also section?

Add Something?

See also section removed

Untitled

Perceived sexual orientation

Add Unlabeled sexual orientation

Edit request from Jkb08, 18 April 2010

two new manifestations?

propose to remove polysexuality as a sexual orientation from the template

Edit request from 46.113.248.37, 22 May 2011

Androphilia and gynephilia

Zoosexuality

Shouldn't the other two sexualities be added back?

Is there evidence that Asexuality is a sexual orientation?

Changes to the template being discussed