Talk:Demographics of sexual orientation

Wrong Number ?

In the Survey mode section,the form which mentioned When face to face asked female respondents'Any same-sex experience'the answer 'yes'is 15%,but in the origin article this number as high as 85.5%... there must be a mistake. Originals:http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147983#sec012 Supporting Information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero011 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It was I who inserted that info into entry and yes, I assume it is a typo in the original article. 85% is too high a number for homosexual experience in the general population and as you can see it doesn't make sense even in the context of the article itself. The article says that only 19.2% of women admitted to a same-sex experience in the web form, despite the fact that only about 7% of women changed answers between forms. The difference between 85.5% and 19.2% is of course higher than 7% by almost 11 times.Rafe87 (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC).

So, Is that right to say the total proportion of either had a same-sex experience or attraction in Females is around 30-40 percent? (15.4%+15.4%) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.57.247.152 (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demographics of sexual orientation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126232740/http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/faculty/ahrg/_docs/2007-samesex-report20.pdf to http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/faculty/ahrg/_docs/2007-samesex-report20.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Demographics of Vatican City

According to a recent book, 80% of the clergy in Vatican City are homosexuals. Vatican is a sovereign country and are usually listed in these kind of surveys. As it has by several orders of magnitude the highest concentration of homosexuals in the world, this should be noted in the article. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/12/four-in-five-vatican-priests-are-gay-book-claims) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB1D:8658:9D00:A992:2066:F6A7:3A18 (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Pollution increases LGBTQ occurrence in flies

Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientists-discovered-alarming-side-effect-100000446.html

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Funny, I read that article just a few hours ago after it was linked somewhere else.

But what, if any, information are you suggesting be added to the article? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This article (syndicated in Yahoo News from The Cool Down) and the study it’s about don’t mention anything about “LGBTQ occurrence”. Pollution isn’t turning the friggin’ flies gay, it’s hampering their ability to differentiate males and females. Anyway, even if the flies were gay, that’s not even vaguely related to the topic of this article. postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

2600:100C:B05B:F3DB:0:49:9E5F:D001 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

MSM data: irrelevant and original research

@Peaceray:

I removed the following content (emphasis mine):

An analysis of 67 studies found that the lifetime prevalence of sex between men (regardless of orientation) was 3–5% for East Asia, 6–12% for South and South East Asia, 6–15% for Eastern Europe, and 6–20% for Latin America. The International HIV/AIDS Alliance estimates a worldwide prevalence of men who have sex with men between 3 and 16 percent.

The rationale for the removal is that both sources have nothing to do with sexual orientation. Even the wiki text (which I boldfaced) makes this clear.

Both sources I removed are about men who have sex with men (MSM). Using primary source MSM data to suggest or imply non-hetero identification, in an article about sexual orientation, is WP:OR. Especially when the sources themselves do not even draw conclusions about sexual orientation, as no peer reviewed study ever would.

Sexual orientation is self-identified. It can't be extrapolated from data about MSM.

Data on men who have had sex with men do not make any assumption about their sexual orientation. MSM frequently do not identify as anything other than heterosexual.

Per CDC:[1]

MSM comprise a diverse group in terms of behaviors, identities, and health care needs (179). The term “MSM” often is used clinically to refer to sexual behavior alone, regardless of sexual orientation (e.g., a person might identify as heterosexual but still be classified as MSM).

Per Baker and Harris (2020), emphasis mine:[2]

In limited circumstances related specifically to same-sex sexual behavior, MSM has its uses. But by design, MSM is untethered from identity.1

This is therefore not an issue of inclusion: this data is not applicable here. It's original research. If a source is to be used to indicate sexual orientation, it should do just that. A Wikipedia editor can't extrapolate sexual orientation demographics from MSM data. When we're talking about MSM data, that includes all kinds of people who don't identify as gay.

2600:100C:B05B:F3DB:0:49:9E5F:D001 (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

2600:100C:B05B:F3DB:0:49:9E5F:D001 (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

A few things:

1. I wrote in the edit summary & on your talk page that you removed more than one source. I found it unclear from the edit summary why you were removing two sources. I would prefer in the future that you specify how many sources you are removing so we know exactly what you are doing.
2. You state above Using primary source MSM data to suggest or imply non-hetero identification [...] However, "Caceres et al" can hardly be construed as primary data, as its objectives include To collect and analyse published and unpublished surveillance and research data & the results section states Of 561 studies on male sexual behaviour and/or MSM population characteristics, 67 addressed prevalence of sex between men. This clearly not primary source MSM data as you allege.
3. The AIDSinfo | UNAIDSdata does not state its sources but appears to be aggregate data. As such, it would be a synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources & thus would be a secondary source as per WP:SECONDARY.

You do not have a case for calling it primary data. You are on more solid ground claiming irrelevance. As I do not have access to "Caceres et al", I will have to rely on others who can to ascertain whether or not it discusses orientation. Peaceray (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Peaceray. I concede that I misspoke when I said that these sources were primary. They synthesize data from other sources. What I really implied is that these studies are not making the interpretation of sexual orientation from their data. The main focus of Caceres et al. and the WHO source are MSM behaviors and how they relate to HIV risk. This is a far cry from sexual orientation.

It's well known for example that a significant number of MSM identify as heterosexual. In fact according to this source the 'majority' identify as heterosexual. Take care and thanks for the correction and your understanding. 2600:100C:B05B:F3DB:0:49:9E5F:D001 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I restored it. The OP is conflating sexual orientation and sexual identity. The latter is a social identity, the former a psychological trait (granted, people do often use them interchangeably, but we should be better than that here and follow the precise academic literature). As a psychological trait, it is manifested in behavior, not just (or even necessarily) identity. This source, already in the article and preserved by OP, is very careful about how (among many other things) self-identification in surveys and such is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the underlying orientations. Since this article is about sexual orientation, and not just identity, statistics on sexual behavior from high quality sources are relevant here. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

IP editor's off-topic table and a cleanup

An IP editor keeps re-inserting a table of LGBT population estimates per country into the article. Reverting me and saying "take it to talk" is incorrect. The WP:ONUS is on the person adding the disputed content to the article.

This table is WP:OFFTOPIC because the page is "demographics of sexual orientation". The T stands for transgender, and transgender should not be confused as a 'sexual orientation'. Second, it is not clear how such a table would even be helpful. Percentages are more useful than numbers, because they actually provide a figure as a fraction of the total population. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Second comment for editors: I am doing a WP:BOLD cleanup to remove off-topic content, and poorly sourced statistics (e.g. press releases from commercial survey groups). Another set of eyes is always good. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

In addition to all the other problems with this table, it's mainly supported by a single source, which is an unsourced PDF from an investment firm named LGBT Capital, which is itself a subsidiary of Galileo Capital Management, which is tiny and generic enough to lack any indication of having a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. As this is not even close to a reliable source this content should not be restored. Again, that's without even addressing the other issues. Grayfell (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Grayfell, I hadn't even looked at the source – worse than I thought. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

For future reference, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlanCity20. Grayfell (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz: You are severely confused. You have repeatedly accused me of being 2A02:8440:D200; yet I am not that individual. I have never interacted with you before. I also did not restore a table based on one citation, as you and Greyfell mistakenly believe. The table I restored, titled "LGBT population estimates by country" is longstanding content with multiple reliable sources, and already existed last year under the older section title "By country". You are probably going to get PBANNED if you continue this kind of bellicose editing strategy, based on your original research about what source is and isn't applicable here. 2600:100C:B0AC:4127:0:2D:E92A:5E01 (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The version you link does not include such a table, so this link appears to be a mistake. The content you have been restoring has been repeatedly restored by a previously blocked sock. Most (but not all) entries to that table used a single source duplicated multiple times. That source is very flimsy. The second most-used source was Outleadership.com. I don't accept that as a reliable source, either. If you wish to defend this content, you should do so on its merits and with better sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I'm not mistaken. This is a direct link to the table as it existed in 2022: [3]

It is based on multiple reliable citations even back in 2022. Not the lgbtcapital citation alone, which I don't dispute is not a reliable source and wouldn't have re-added if Zenomonoz hadn't deleted all the other good sources and data. 2600:100C:B0AC:4127:0:2D:E92A:5E01 (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that Outleadership is not a reliable source, either. 2600:100C:B0AC:4127:0:2D:E92A:5E01 (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

A completely different table than the one you (edit: re)introduced. It’s still questionably sourced. Most importantly, a figure that lumps transgender people into the figure is off topic as being transgender is not a sexual orientation. This page covers LGB and heterosexual demographics, not gender identity. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not a "completely different table", and I did not introduce any content to the table in this article as you keep hamfistedly accusing me. I restored the content you boldly removed, because a good deal of it was longstanding and reliably sourced (such as China and the United States). Stop conflating me with the French IP who kept adding LGBTcapital. 2600:100C:B0AC:4127:0:2D:E92A:5E01 (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

No. This has nothing to do with a "French IP". Yes, you did include a completely different table. You literally made this edit to include the table which primarily cites LGBTcapital (that is your IP). You are either misrepresenting your own edits or trolling. It was not "longstanding and reliably sourced" either. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems unrealistically narrow. Reliable sources recognize that sexual orientation, gender identity, and sexual identity are separate but overlapping and interrelated. Sources which treat these as easily-compartmentalized tend to be less reliable for this reason. We have to follow sources and reflect the categories used by sources. Grayfell (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

If we agree the major source was bad, we can agree that the table should not have been restored as-is.

Regarding for the shorter table, that one uses Outleadership.com. I have questions about INQUIRIES Journal, which seems like a decent undergraduate journal, but which is not in a position to publish this kind of research itself. The HuffPost source appears to be an unreliable "contributor" blog post, and it provides no indication where it found these numbers. For India, the estimated range was so broad it's basically meaningless even if the sources were legit. (Are they legit?) So on its own merits this table seems unhelpful here. The way to fix this is to find better sources. Grayfell (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz: again, I did not introduce the content to the article which you are describing. The French IP did that. I restored them because you were deleting good sources along with lgbtcapital and outleadership. I am not obligated to go through your bold deletions and check which sources are good and which aren't. When I see huge deletions of longstanding content, which you hadn't justified at the talk page, I am entitled to revert. It's that simple. Open your eyes. 2600:100C:B0AC:4127:0:2D:E92A:5E01 (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting what I have said. I stated in the first message in this thread that you were "re-inserting a table". The table that you re-inserted here is not "longstanding content", it was added one week ago here by an IP editor. Stating that it is a "French IP" is irrelevant to whether or not this is a sock edit or not.

The table back in 2022 was different: it has different citations and was much smaller. It doesn't matter how longstanding or old content is. That is irrelevant as to whether or not it stays in an article. If something is poorly sourced (as Grayfell notes) or off topic (as I argued) it can be taken off, because we have guidelines for editing. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz: it is clear from your edits here and your talk page that you are someone who is unable to realize that the rules apply to you. When you want to delete longstanding content, whether you think it is off topic or unreliably sourced, you have to achieve seek consensus at the talk page first, if you don't want to expect to be reverted. I am not a sock and I am not whoever made the French IP edit. You need to stop making that insinuation. You have repeatedly accused me of being a sock, but this goes against community guidelines (the appropriate place to do that is at SPI). 2600:100C:B0AC:4127:0:2D:E92A:5E01 (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"You have repeatedly accused me of being a sock" – I would appreciate if you stop misrepresenting what I have said on the talk page per WP:TALKNO (unacceptable talk page behaviour). I haven't "repeatedly accused" you of being a sock. I have commented on your SPI once, Grayfell noted there is an SPI. Earlier in the thread you also claimed "You have repeatedly accused me of being 2A02:8440:D200" when I never did.

You haven't provided any rationale for inclusion of the table apart from "it's longstanding content", which isn't justification for keeping poorly sourced content. WP:V Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and WP:NOR Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Grayfell and I agree that the citations used on both versions of the table were not good enough. Just because something was once on an article does not mean it needs to be re-included. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)