Talk:Homosexuality
From Conservapedia
Contents |
Link
Please remove the internal link to pedophilia. It's a locked article and clogging up the wanted pages list. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 17:49, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
- I removed it. conservative 22:23, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
- Please add the template {{DivineComedy}} at the end of the article. I'd do it myself but the article still seems to be locked. BrianCo 17:51, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
- P.S. Do we need a Homosexuality template to link the articles together? I could make one up if it is deemed a good idea. BrianCo 17:53, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
- Would there be an issue with the long names of articles? Many of them are of the form "Homosexuality and X", but not all and many involve multiple words. Before I weigh on whether it would be useful, I'd like to know that there would be a way to do it without adding a lot of clutter to the pages. -Foxtrot 21:04, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
- Foxtrot - I did a similar thing with Liberal. It's not necessary to use the full article name for the link text. So for Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence it would only be necessary to have a link called "Domestic Violence". BrianCo 17:41, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- I hadn't noticed that. I'm impressed, it actually looks pretty good. Okay, I'm game--let's give your homosexuality thing a try. If we don't like it we can always switch back. -Foxtrot 01:03, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- P.S. We'll probably need Conservative's cooperation on this to make it work -Foxtrot 01:05, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- Having seen the article's history, that seems sensible. However, his/her talk page is locked. Conservative, if you read this, could you unlock your talk page please?--CPalmer 10:53, 2 November 2008 (EST)
- I think Conservative has made it pretty clear that he doesn't actually want anyone's help in making this a better, easier to use article. ----ToJones 13:07, 2 November 2008 (EST)
- Having seen the article's history, that seems sensible. However, his/her talk page is locked. Conservative, if you read this, could you unlock your talk page please?--CPalmer 10:53, 2 November 2008 (EST)
- Foxtrot - I did a similar thing with Liberal. It's not necessary to use the full article name for the link text. So for Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence it would only be necessary to have a link called "Domestic Violence". BrianCo 17:41, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- Would there be an issue with the long names of articles? Many of them are of the form "Homosexuality and X", but not all and many involve multiple words. Before I weigh on whether it would be useful, I'd like to know that there would be a way to do it without adding a lot of clutter to the pages. -Foxtrot 21:04, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
- P.S. Do we need a Homosexuality template to link the articles together? I could make one up if it is deemed a good idea. BrianCo 17:53, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
- Please add the template {{DivineComedy}} at the end of the article. I'd do it myself but the article still seems to be locked. BrianCo 17:51, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Is it possible to let someone at least edit this page for style? There's a lot of "in regards to" and "in relation to" that comes off as really clunky and unnecessary. Also someone could make the page flow a little better and improve organization to make it a bit more user-friendly. ----ToJones 11:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- TOJones, to make things administratively easy, please copy a section of the article with proposed stylistic changes here: User:conservative/homosexuality-stylistic-changes We can incorporate the changes if they are improvements and then erase your copied section. The process could then be repeated. Please use small sections and not multiple sections. Please do not copy the whole article because that would make things more cumbersome as it would require more scrolling. conservative 13:41, 2 November 2008 (EST)
- I need to run out for the day, I'll work on this tonight ----ToJones 13:58, 2 November 2008 (EST)
- ToJones, I am going to be very busy for the next 14 days, so please be patient. I certainly do not mind your good faith efforts to improve the article and I promise to follow up. conservative 14:08, 2 November 2008 (EST)
- I need to run out for the day, I'll work on this tonight ----ToJones 13:58, 2 November 2008 (EST)
- TOJones, to make things administratively easy, please copy a section of the article with proposed stylistic changes here: User:conservative/homosexuality-stylistic-changes We can incorporate the changes if they are improvements and then erase your copied section. The process could then be repeated. Please use small sections and not multiple sections. Please do not copy the whole article because that would make things more cumbersome as it would require more scrolling. conservative 13:41, 2 November 2008 (EST)
Length, Organization, and Flow
Forgive me, but this article is ridiculously long. It has a lot of unnecessary junk in it. You should consider removing the legal stuff. It's not really that important. Maybe, you could also shorten the paragraphs in general. You also have too much stuff over the controversy on homosexuality. You should really tone it down. Clean it up some, and make it flow better. It's pretty random. The organization could be a lot better. I mean, I'm not trying to be rude, it's just REALLY HARD TO FOLLOW THE ARTICLE. Maybe you could rewrite it, OK?
- You have a rather vague critique for someone who supposedly wants to provide additional clarity. conservative 12:24, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- Okay. You use in regards to and in relation to far too often, part of a general trend of having no transition between any section. Rather than using long block quotes, it would be better to simply summarize this information with citations, and include more extensive information in the linked pages. This simple change, using a summar rather than "in regards to," - block quote - new section, would make the article much more accessible. ----ToJones 12:33, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- TOJones, I believe I used "in relation to" and "in regards to" and "in respect to". If you have other variants you wish to suggest, I certainly would not mind you sharing them. I suppose I could vary the sentence placement of these phrases within sentences as well. Any suggestions with this related matter would be welcome as well. conservative 13:13, 2 November 2008 (EST)
- You have a rather vague critique for someone who supposedly wants to provide additional clarity. conservative 12:24, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
There also needs to be some work done on the references. A lot of them are simply links to other websites - this is not appropriate to an encyclopaedic work - we can't simply take everything that someone posts on the Internet as a valid source for referencing. Some of the points which cite references (such as simply stating what is in the Bible) don't require references anyway; others which link to sites which are (often by their own admission) simply opinions should be removed. If this is to become a site which can be referenced for school and university work then the academic standards need to be more rigorous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BarrySw19 (talk)
- There is nothing stopping you from finding the references and posting them, so save your
breathkeystrokes and post them instead of complaining. -Foxtrot 23:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Navigation box?
I'd suggest producing a navigation box template to help readers find their way around the various articles on homosexuality. Would this be a good idea? I'd like to get a consensus before I do anything because some of the pages are protected. Also, it will probably look better if someone other than me does it.--CPalmer 12:39, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- BrianCo has already suggested the navigation box idea just above on this talk page. We'll count this comment as further support for the idea. -Foxtrot 13:04, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks - hadn't seen that. I do think it's a good idea perhaps a sidebar along the lines of Template:Bible?--CPalmer 13:09, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- I think a sidebar at the top of the article would be helpful and please have it hightlight the major issues: causes of homosexuality, homosexuality and choice, health, domestic violence, teenager homosexuality, ex-homosexuals, homosexual agenda, homosexuality and the Bible, homosexual marriage, etc. conservative 13:20, 2 November 2008 (EST)
- Done - see Template:Homosexuality. Please comment/improve as you see fit.--CPalmer 07:11, 3 November 2008 (EST)
- Botheration, I've spelt it wrong - it's at Template:Homesexuality. Could someone possibly move it please?--CPalmer 07:13, 3 November 2008 (EST)
- Not to worry, I've simply created the correct spelling and copied everything over. We're good to go!--CPalmer 09:59, 3 November 2008 (EST)
- I think a sidebar at the top of the article would be helpful and please have it hightlight the major issues: causes of homosexuality, homosexuality and choice, health, domestic violence, teenager homosexuality, ex-homosexuals, homosexual agenda, homosexuality and the Bible, homosexual marriage, etc. conservative 13:20, 2 November 2008 (EST)
- Thanks - hadn't seen that. I do think it's a good idea perhaps a sidebar along the lines of Template:Bible?--CPalmer 13:09, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Animals?
I found this article on homosexuality in animals on Wikipedia--[1]--should we mention this in the article? Or is it another example of Wikipedia's liberal bias? StelaeD 21:56, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Why
Why is this article locked and is only being edited by one person?--Vmember 10:14, 13 November 2008 (EST)
This article is terribly written. Can someone please clean it up
