Talk:The Bible and homosexuality

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mathglot (talk | contribs) at 23:00, 22 January 2020 (→Re: Havelock Ellis: In case of a content dispute, please discuss, don't edit-war.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:00, 22 January 2020 by Mathglot (talk | contribs) (→Re: Havelock Ellis: In case of a content dispute, please discuss, don't edit-war.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Bible and homosexuality article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The Bible and homosexuality received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Judaism Mid‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bible Mid‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sexology and sexuality

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

"Traditionalist"

I've removed "traditionalist" from These two verses have historically been interpreted by Traditionalist Jews and Christians as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general. The semantic value added by "traditionalist" is already added by "historically" - we're not suggesting that the interpretation was objectively correct and eternally valid, only that this is how it has generally been read. If there are significant historical examples of non-traditionalist movements interpreting the verse in other ways, we can discuss that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal (granted, I'm the one who inserted "Traditionalist" to begin with). The current wording gives the impression that All Christians and Jews view homosexuality and the bible in that same way, and that's simply not true, that's why I inserted the word "Traditional" (as opposed to "inclusionists"). However, I was bold, you reverted, now it get's discussed. I Support adding "traditional into the sentence as it appears in my revert, what do the rest of you say? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 18:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the current wording does give that impression. It says that this has been the historical interpretation of the verse, which I think it would be hard to contradict. Beyond what we already include in the article about how recent interpretation has emphasized the historical context of the verse as distinguishing Israelites from their idolatrous neighbors, what is it that you feel is missing? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Rfc on inclusion of the word "traditional" or not

There is a clear consensus against inserting the word "Traditionalist" in the sentence.
Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

This rfc is being opened to attract more discussion on the following subject and to gain consensus one way or the other:

The second sentence in the article currently reads:

"These two verses have historically been interpreted by Jews and Christians as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general."

I propose to insert word "Traditionalist" so that the sentence reads:

"These two verses have historically been interpreted by Traditionalist Jews and Christians as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general."

I propose to make this change because:

1.) Since not all Christians support this interpretation, it would make the wording more accurate, as the current wording, IMHO makes it look like all Christians support that interpretation.

2.) There is no source being used to support the current sentence as it stands.

I have attempted to add the word "Traditionalist" once, Roscelese doesn't support this and has removed it, as is her right. We started a discussion, and so far it's been only her and I. So I now welcome more eyes and hands to this discussion. What do you think ? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't believe that the current wording, with "historically", gives the impression that all Christians support this interpretation, and adding "traditionalist" is implying that throughout history, "non-traditionalist" movements have interpreted the verse in other ways, which I think would be difficult to support. See the rest of my argument further up the talk page. It would take 2 seconds to support the claim that historically, this verse has been interpreted as a prohibition on homosexuality, if indeed a suitable source isn't already in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I would oppose the addition of "traditionalist" per Roscelese above. However, I do agree that the current wording is problematic without a source, and may even be inaccurate. A few minutes of reading other relevant articles on Misplaced Pages led me to find that Initially, canons against sodomy were aimed at ensuring clerical or monastic discipline, and were only widened in the medieval period to include laymen. in History_of_the_Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality#Early_Church_Councils and that lesbianism is not explicitly prohibited in the Bible in Homosexuality in Judaism. While a more thorough review of relevant literature would probably find that interpretations of these verses as being prohibitions on homosexual activity were the norm historically, it seems a stretch to say that these verses were interpreted as "clear overall" prohibitions, since exceptions to their clarity and overall-ness are attested by reliable sources. I would thus propose that we change the at-issue text to read These two verses have historically been interpreted by Jews and Christians as prohibitions against homosexual acts in general.

That having been said, while I'm proposing this as a short term improvement and compromise, even this solution may be inaccurate, particularly w/r/t Jewish attitudes for the following reasons:

It's not clear that Jewish prohibitions against lesbian acts stem from this verse; they are most directly taken from the Talmud, and it's unclear if the rabbis of the Talmud were using these verses as the basis of their rulings
Describing Jewish prohibitions as being against homosexual acts in general may be inaccurate. The text in Homosexuality in Judaism currently suggests that while intercourse was prohibited, attraction was not, which means that homosexual acts short of intercourse may have been considered permissible.

Thus, until proper sources are provided, it may be best to rewrite the sentence to read These two verses have historically been interpreted by Christians as overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general. _signed,Rosguill 18:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

- @Rosguill: I would be fine with removing "clear overall", and also with substituting "traditionally" for "historically" if that would address any of WKWWK's concerns. Now that you bring it up, it may in fact be worth noting male homosexuality in our sentence, or addressing some of these other concerns - I was mostly, as I said, concerned by implying things that were incorrect through the use of "traditionalist". Like I said, the current wording does not state or imply, imo, that no Christians interpret the verse differently or accept gay people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Roscelese. St Anselm (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Roscelese. Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment: @Wekeepwhatwekill:, this Rfc was premature, in my opinion. I realize you are a new user (welcome to Misplaced Pages!), but do have a look at WP:RFCBEFORE next time, before jumping straight to the Rfc process after only a brief discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Thanks to those who have contributed their considerable scholarship to various aspects of this issue! One clear problem would be capitalizing "Traditionalist" since there's no formal group so designated in these faiths. But basically, the article shows the complexity of the issue and any such simplification in the lede would be unhelpful. Jzsj (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. While I sympathise with Wekeepwhatwekill regarding the perhaps overly broad nature of the statement, the use of a capitalised "Traditionalist" label is poorly defined, not particularly neutral and generally unhelpful. I would support the use of more neutral words like "many" or "most" instead of "Traditionalist" to qualify the statement (ideally with a reliable source to support it). While it is not the question of this RFC, I also support the removal of the phrase "clear overall" from the statement as per Rosguill's suggestion. Finally, @Wekeepwhatwekill: I agree with Mathglot that there was insufficient discussion prior to raising this RFC. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Traditionalist is not defined. I agree with the above suggestion to add something like "some" or "many". That would necessitate some well sourced discussion elsewhere in the article. It's never too soon for an RfC. The more the merrier. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment - User: Morgan_Leigh and User:203.10.55.11 It seems that it's well enough understood to have at least two Misplaced Pages articles written about it, and both cover the religious component of Traditionalism.

User:203.10.55.11 and User:Mathglot - the rfc was more or less an IAR move. The discussion on this page involved myself and another user and we didn't agree. Time elapsed an no one else joined this discussion. Dispute resolution, is then, the correct course. A third opinion on this issue seemed incorrect as it's contentious, therefore an RFC seemed to be the correct course for this as multiple opinions could be gained this way, and yes, it wouldn't be the normal way to go about this , I'm aware. It was, again, an IAR approach. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I am tempted to agree with you Wekeepwhatwekill however, there was no evidence provided for inserting this term, and without that and thus left as-is, I would oppose on that grounds. Some of the discussions above discuss what Traditionalists mean (as that term has different meanings in different contexts) and thus overall it seems this entire issue needs clearer definitions via credible resources. --- FULBERT (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2019 (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.

Ruth and Naomi

IMHO, Coogan renders the WP:MAINSTREAM view, but we shouldn't reject the opposite view as totally inadequate. I don't consider feminist theology as WP:FRINGE. Minority should not be conflated with fringe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and would also note that verses from Ruth are apparently recited at weddings. Misplaced Pages does not purport to interpret the Bible, just to document its interpretation by others. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Addition of homoerotic passages

Reading this article I note that it lacks references to several sections of scripture with homoerotic overtones. The section on David and Jonathan seems underdeveloped for the amount of debate occurring today, for example, and lacks reference to troubles that translators have with the Hebrew "ag higdil" - today very politely and possibly bowlderized as "David wept the more" - in 1 Samuel 20:41 (Michael Coogan's views notwithstanding, even Coogan's own NRSV commentary notes that the Hebrew is incomprehensible - Oxford UP 2018). There's also Jacob and the Angel and Joseph as Sissy Boy, each supported by scholarly analyses that point out homoerotic overtones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Changed bible translation from KJV to NRSV

I've changed some of the translations of bible passages used from KJV to NRSV to reflect a more mainstream academic English language bible translation (See: WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:ABIAS) PandaWent (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

- Just adding my thanks for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edit of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 section

I'm going to re-write 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 section as follows:

Original:

The Greek word arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται) in verse 9 has been debated for some time, and has been variously rendered as "sodomites" (NRSV), "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "men who have sex with men" (NIV) or "practicing homosexuals" (NET). Martin Luther translated the term as Knabenschaender, or pederasts. Greek ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην means "male", and κοίτην "bed", with a sexual connotation. Paul's use of the word in 1 Corinthians is the earliest example of the term; its only other usage is in a similar list of wrongdoers given (possibly by the same author) in 1 Timothy 1:8–11: In the letter to the Corinthians, within the list of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul uses two Greek words: malakoi and arsenokoitai. Malakoi is a common Greek word meaning, of things subject to touch, "soft" (used in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 to describe a garment); of things not subject to touch, "gentle"; and, of persons or modes of life, a number of meanings that include "pathic". Nowhere else in scripture is malakoi used to describe a person.

New:

In the letter to the Corinthians, within the list of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul uses two Greek words: Malakia (μαλακοὶ) and arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται).
Arsenokoitai (translated 'sodomites' in above translation) is a word first used by Paul in 1 Corinthians (and later in 1 Timothy 1). It is a compound word from the Greek words 'arrhēn / arsēn' (ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην) meaning "male", and koitēn (κοίτην) meaning "bed", with a sexual connotation. Arsenokoitai has been variously rendered as "sodomites" (NRSV), "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "men who have sex with men" (NIV) or "practicing homosexuals" (NET).
Malakoi (translated 'male prostitutes' in above translation) is a common Greek word meaning, of things subject to touch, "soft" (used in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 to describe a garment); of things not subject to touch, "gentle"; and, of persons or modes of life, a number of meanings that include "pathic".

Removed:

Nowhere else in scripture is malakoi used to describe a person. - Point should be made in the interpretation section
Martin Luther translated the term as Knabenschaender, or pederasts. - Irrelevant to discussion

If no objections, I'll edit accordingly. PandaWent (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

OBJECT: Please leave reference to pederasty in place. Martin Luther's translation of the word is hardly irrelevant inasmuch as it (1) bears witness to the point that several scholars make that Paul was specifically writing about (underage by today's standards) temple catamites, (2) is representative of a number of translations, and (3) was in widespread use in the US up to the late 19th century and informed a number of cultural stereotypes about gay men during a period in which homosexuality was pathologized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

While Martin Luther's translation is interesting. I think it is more relevant to the interpretation section (or even Homosexuality in the New Testament). It's a historical interpretation that I couldn't find any modern translation using. PandaWent (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. This section presents various ways in which an obscure Greek neologism has been rendered in modern translations. If the KJV is modern, so too is the Luther Bible. You'll find the same in Swedish and Norwegian etc. translations from this era as well; these, like the Luther Bible, have Paul indicating that pederasts will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. These are foundational translations and the discussion would be incomplete without them. - Metanoia2019

I left the KJV in there as a large number of modern bible readers (not scholars) will use that translation. Happy to remove if it makes you more comfortable? For simplicity, I'll move the sentence about Luther's translation to the interpretation section so it is still in the article as it has relevance just not to the introduction of that section PandaWent (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Please leave reference to KJV in place. Please leave references to pederasty in place; these belong to the body of well-known translations of the word, rather than interpretations of it.

How about, this sentence at the end of that paragraph: "Historical translations have translated into English as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV) and Martin Luther translated the term as Knabenschaender, or pederasts."

That way we're prioritising more up to date scholarship while also mentioning important historical translations? PandaWent (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, though I think most serious scholars these days would say that we can't really know exactly what Paul meant - hence the wide array of translations we see here and the reams and reams of books currently in print on the topic all with competing viewpoints. And I disagree that we can call the NIV or NEV scholarship as such. But in the interest of moving forward, what about "...or "practicing homosexuals" (NET), while Martin Luther and others translated the term as 'pederasts.'"

OBJECT: I also don't think you can quite say that this was a word "first used by Paul"; he appears to be borrowing it from the Septuagint translations of Lev. 18:22 and 20:23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Pretty confident Paul was the first person to use the word. Although, as you've noted, it is likely he is borrowing from the Septuagint. Which is noted in detail on Homosexuality in the New Testament. Would you be more happy with the line being changed to:

"...first used by Paul in 1 Corinthians (and later in 1 Timothy 1) although many scholars consider it to be adapted from the wording of the Septuagint translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:23." PandaWent (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. None of us can say with metaphysical certainty that Paul - or anyone for that matter - was the first to use this word. It would be more accurate to note that this is the first recorded usage of what appears to be a neologism. And disagree that we can say that Paul wrote 1 Timothy as a majority of scholars find conclusive evidence that 1 Timothy is pseudoepigraphic. Is the Greenberg excerpt new? It feels tangential and editorializes a bit. - Metanoia2019

How about: "...first recorded use by Paul in 1 Corinthians (and possibly later in 1 Timothy 1) although many scholars consider it to be adapted from the wording of the Septuagint translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:23"

The Greenburg ref was used on the New Testament and Homosexuality article but if you can find another reference I'm happy to add/replace the Greenburg one PandaWent (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this would work better without the reference to 1 Timothy 1. Or for clarity, "and later in 1 Timothy 1, attributed to Paul." I can live with the Greenberg, though I wish he hadn't editorialized. Somewhere here though we will want to note the number of scholars who believe that the section of Leviticus 18 in which verse 22 appears was added to the text by a later writer. That would be unwieldy here of course. Maybe best to link up to the section on Leviticus and go from there? - Metanoia2019

Nicly worded. So how about: "...first recorded use by Paul in 1 Corinthians (and later in 1 Timothy 1, attributed to Paul) although many scholars consider it to be adapted from the wording of the Septuagint translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:23"PandaWent (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks for suggesting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

I don't believe it's appropriate to suggest that the translation as "sodomites" etc. isn't also "interpretation." There isn't really a good reason to separate out the discussion into a subsection. I do however approve of the use of a topic sentence in the section. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Pregeant, Russell (2008). Stefan Koenemann & Ronald A. Jenner (ed.). Knowing truth, doing good: engaging New Testament ethics. Fortress Press. p. 252. ISBN 978-0-8006-3846-7.
^ "Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', entry μαλακός". Perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved 2014-03-11.
^ David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality, 1990. Page 213:
"The details of Boswell's argument have been challenged by several scholars — to this nonspecialist, persuasively. These challengers suggest that arsenokoites was coined in an attempt to render the awkward phrasing of the Hebrew in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 into Greek, or that it derives from an almost identical construction in the Septuagint translation of the Leviticus prohibitions. A neologism was needed precisely because the Greeks did not have a word for homosexuality, only for specific homosexual relations (pederasty) and roles ..."

Re: Havelock Ellis

Whether we keep the Ellis reference or not, "some sexual scholars" is a terrible phrasing. Beyond that, however, @Mathglot: I think you're making a couple of unencyclopedic leaps of logic. Ellis wasn't a biblical scholar or, for that matter, a historian, yes? So his opinion may be admissible in suggesting that "even" Victorians who didn't consider homosexuality a disease or a sin didn't think that Jonathan and David's relationship was romantic, but writing that he "concluded" that there was no evidence is a little strong for what we actually have. Ideally a secondary source would note this sort of thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's poor phrasing, I just couldn't come up with something better on short notice; feel free to improve. Maybe something like, "even Ellis...". The one point perhaps of disagreement, is that the fact that Ellis isn't a biblical scholar is neither here nor there; the article is about the intersection of two topics, and we should no more discard experts in sexuality who are ignorant of history and the Bible, than vice versa. If anything, the culture being steeped in Christianity as it is, it's likely (but remains to be proven) that Ellis, other sexual experts, or indeed anyone of his time would have some acquaintance and training in the Bible (which does not make him an expert in that topic, granted) but the converse is certainly not true. I'm fine with changing "concluded" (unless that is what the source says). Just because he concluded something (if he did) doesn't make it any more, or less, likely to be true. As long as we provide in-text attribution, it really doesn't matter what he thought or concluded, as long as we report it accurately. I guess I was mostly objecting to the offhand disregard of his opinions, being from 1908 (exclamation point). One might well add opinions by Freud, and Hirschfeld, from around the same time period, and by von Kraft Ebbing before that, if they can be quoted on the topic. Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Metanoia2019, please join the discussion, instead of edit warring. You made your view clear, in summary form, in this edit, complaining that the citation from Ellis is from 1908, exclamation point. Indeed it is; and Freud's views on the topic are from 1905, Hirschfeld's activism for homosexuals a decade earlier, and the views of von Krafft-Ebing, a decade before that. So what? I see citations to both Old and New testaments which go back millennia in the article, so complaining about a 1908 scientific article by a giant in the field of sexuality seems ironic. When your edit was undone, you immediately reverted here to enforce your preferred version. Please don't do that; instead, observe WP:BRD and discuss. You're still a new editor, so other editors will cut you some additional slack, but as you've been actively editing here and on related topics, you need to get on board with Misplaced Pages's core principles of consensus and collaboration, and part of that means discussing here, and not edit-warring. See also WP:Dispute resolution for additional guidance. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories: