Talk:Lesbian/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

Odd link

this talk page is linked to Talk:Lesbian/Gay Chorus of San Francisco, i think cause of the "Talk:Lesbian/" and how Wikipedia formats and links things like this. its odd if you are on that talk page to see the link. its not correct. i dont know if it can be fixed without changing the name of the other article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

female homosexuality promotion

"Women generally exhibit greater sexual fluidity than men and find it easier to become physically and emotionally intimate with the same sex than men do"... WTF? no source for this statement which is a total lesbian POV and there is no "sexual fluidity" at all with men! this is propaganda! Big Donut (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's sourced several times throughout the article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I see several references to female sexual fluidity throughout the article, but little in the way of direct comparisons between men and women. I actually think this could be true. Could you point to a study that came to this conclusion? Even a respected psychological organization that has taken this view would help. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Gay men

What is the parallel article about gay men? Gay almost entirely references its meaning as a synonym for homosexual. Any guidance would be welcome! fishhead64 (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be no article about gay male culture. That does not mean you cannot create one. --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is LGBT culture#Gay male culture, but that looks to be in a pretty sorry state. Category:Male homosexuality is probably more helpful. LGBT history and Timeline of LGBT history include a lot on gay men. In the absence of a specific overview article focusing on gay men I would really recommend browsing the category tree, starting at a root like Category:Sexual orientation. Siawase (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me some clues about where to start! Cheers fishhead64 (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Health section

Luciferwildcat, please read the entire health section before posting this nonsense again. If you do insert it again, I'm going to protect the article and report you for edit warring.

• The information you're inserting is not cited to medical sources. Better sources are already in the article.
• The information you're inserting does not agree with the medical sources.
• It's very clearly redundant. You're repeating what has already been stated in the article, cited to much better sources,
• There's absolutely NO EXCUSE for the tone you're using, esp. using "lessies" in this article. Absolutely none. Keep doing it I'll report you at ANI. You should be blocked as a vandal for doing this by itself. This is an encyclopedia, not a bathroom stall. --Moni3 (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• It's sourced to reliable sources and lessies is a term of endearment not your bathroom stall banter as you say. It's poor grammar to keep saying lesbian lesbian lesbian, you have to use other terms like homosexual woman, lesbiana, maybe even gayelle.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Medical facts and findings need to be sourced to medical sources. See WP:MEDRS.
• There are no terms of endearment in an encyclopedia. --Moni3 (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Moni. Article already has high quality section on health with best available medical sources cited. There is no excuse for the repeated insertion of unnecessary and inappropriate content.--В и к и T 23:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I am just not gay enough to participate?LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If being gay means you don't read the article first to see what it says, then you insert repetitive information that conflicts with what is in the article cited to better sources, and the tone you use is unacceptable for an encyclopedia, perhaps you're too gay to participate. --Moni3 (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Heading Picture

This section was archived by the bot and re-placed on the talk page by --Moni3 (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC) And again Moni3 (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the girls holding hands and also motorcycle helmets shot. Kind of stereotype encouraging and cliche. Can we find something that represents the idea at a more basic level, and actually connotates a romantic/sexual relationship, as well? Plus it's not totally clear that they are both women. Pretty obvious, but it could be overlooked. If somebody comes to this article not knowing what a lesbian is, that picture won't exactly clear things up for them at a glance, which I'd assumed was the point.

Maybe a simple, not seedy-looking kiss, instead? Or even a kiss on the cheek, or maybe two women in wedding dresses? Also the caption is a bit mealy-mouthed, and grammatically unwieldy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.128.222 (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been brought up previously. There are several issues about this. First, an image needs to be free to be used. Second, images of faces may need to be released by the people in them unless they are public figures. Third, any image of a woman's face used at the top of this article will instantly represent the picture of what a lesbian is. Even two. That means issues of race, gender, and age arise. Should they be feminine? Butch? Butch and femme? White? Black? Asian or Latina? Young or old?

To resolve these problems, what would you suggest? --Moni3 (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest getting rid of the picture until we find something better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.234.154 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this Wikipedia stuff, but I agree with the person who says that the picture should be deleted until something better is found. Maybe a shot of a huge group, or something without people in it--pride flag? a shot of a lesbo history museum? or something historical? I don't know. But that's a HORRIBLE shot to open this article with. I came to this article to find out (for highly personal reasons!) what someone from a homophobic culture would find on the internet if she were nervously starting to explore her identity. And this is NOT what I would want. It enforces stereotypes that aren't representative at all. Even if I DID support those stereotypes, it should NOT be attached to an "objective" encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.186.226.63 (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it a bad idea to remove the image without replacing it with one that could be much better. The problem is the "much better" part. I don't quite grasp why an image of two women from behind holding hands is offensive; if any user is offended by the image, no doubt any other image would be just as offensive. There is so much baggage involved with the Lesbian label that readers will be coming here to discover more about themselves and many of them no doubt will feel trapped by any image at the top of the article. Women will want it to represent them, but will not accept another image they don't want to be included with. No fat, anorexic, unattractive, pretty, masculine, athletic, androgynous, fashionable, dour, feminine, young, old, historical, contemporary, wealthy, poor, white, Hispanic, black, Indian, or Asian women, because that's not who they are.

For the multiple times this issue has been brought up previously, no one has been able to provide a suitable alternative. In my opinion, most of the people who complain about it are allowing themselves to be offended by the image. I'm open to alternate suggestions, but they must fall within a set of parameters:

• The image must be free. Wikipedia Commons has a repository of images that could be used, and that is available here. Many of these images are poor indeed.
• If no suitable image can be found there, one may be able to be loaded if it is in the public domain or released into the public domain using the GNU free documentation license (meaning it can be sent to the Wikimedia Foundation and released by the copyright owner/photographer). An original image can be taken for the purpose of heading the article. I've considered doing this, but the same offenses taken at the current image I fear will be taken at any newer image.
• If people's faces are in full view, they need to release their permission to the Wikimedia Foundation.
• It is possible to make a composite of images showing a variety of women, modeled on the opening image at African American.
• An image can focus only on an action, as two women holding hands (as currently showing) or kissing, zoomed in to show only hands or parts of faces. Sepia tones or other effects on the image can resolve issues of race or age. This still obviously will bring complaints for one reason or another.
• Instead of a photograph of people, a symbol can replace it. The problem with this is that a symbol, such as the double woman symbol, double-headed axe, or black triangle, are inaccurate to illustrate an article that for the history of lesbianism has not been used or recognized as a symbol of female homosexuals, or in the case of the black triangle, simply historically inaccurate to represent lesbians.
• To avoid specific issues, a simple line drawing can be used, but this begs the logistical questions of how to produce one, and then aesthetic questions about why a line drawing must replace photographed flesh.
• No image at all so as not to offend anyone. I'm not a fan of this particular solution. It's my belief that readers are coming here with the concept of Lesbian they have learned within their life experiences. The article should broaden their knowledge and show them how these concepts were developed and that they are entirely social constructs.

Anyone else have any ideas? --Moni3 (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the lead image at all and it's lasted there quite awhile. I would say most readers are smart enough to know that a tame snap like that is not meant to be a definition of the topic. The symbols all have political meanings/backgrounds which don't match up with the wider topic. One might think about doing a grid of women historically identified with this topic, but I can foresee how even that could draw unhappy posts from some. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I much prefer the lead image we have now over having no image at all. I really do like the collage at African American though, but I'm not sure it's possible to create something similar here. Likely if we did there would still be ongoing disagreements over who should be included. Siawase (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it about time to create a FAQ at the top of this talk page to address this? --Moni3 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dunno but if anyone could write a helpful FAQ on this, I'd think it would be you. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've only done this once, very quickly in an outline for when Gropecunt Lane was on the main page. So...let me give this a shot...

Q: Why is there a picture at the top of the page representing two figures from behind, holding hands? Does this really represent what a lesbian is or what the word means?

A: Readers occasionally drop by to complain about this image and it has been discussed several times since early 2009. Resolving this issue is problematic.

• There are strict limitations on the kinds of images that can be used on Wikipedia. The image at the top of the article is free and the least offensive because it shows an action instead of faces, thereby avoiding most problems associating age, gender expression, and appearance with what it means to be a lesbian.
• The article addresses the different ways "lesbian" has been used in English. Simply showing the face(s) of one or two women who identify as lesbian is too limiting. "Lesbian" can refer to actions, objects, or types of media, like books or film. Women of all races, ages, classes, and other various descriptions can either identify as lesbians or be involved in same-sex relationships, declining to use a label. An image of one or two people cannot possibly represent the various visages that "lesbian" can describe.
• Symbols, such as the double female symbol (left): , labrys: , or black triangle: have only been used recently, since about the 1970s and do not represent the breadth of concepts discussed in the article.

However, the image can be replaced, which means anyone can take another photograph and load it to Wikipedia, but there are certain parameters that another image must meet:

• It must be free. The photographer or copyright holder should release it into the public domain or creative commons license.
• Anyone whose face is identifiable in the image needs to release their permission for it to be used.
• It should account for the above considerations and not attempt to illustrate what one or all lesbians look like.

If readers have creative suggestions to resolve these issues, please present them below on the talk page.

Suggestions? --Moni3 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've read the discussion and seen the issues in play, I suppose that the best course would be to wait for a lesbian couple to put up their own photo. I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been done already, but I suppose I shouldn't be. Good luck! kencf0618 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not going to lie, first thing I thought on this page was why a picture of two people's butts? then I read the caption, "ohh, they are two women holding hands," then I thought, "I should leave a comment saying the image doesn't represent well." I don't need to repeat what others have said and I see the reasoning why it is not changed. But still a change would be good. The picture doesn't necessarily have to be of a lesbian couple. It could use symbolism like sexual orientation pages TreboniusArtorius (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What if we could have a picture that isn't of real people, but cartoonish pictures? Then, it violates no privacy and if the artist clears it, it would give us a good perspective on what the topic is, while showing it. Or does Wikipedia not allow cartoonish photos? I'm a Writer and you know it! :) (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest again this one:

• 
  Sappho and Erinna in a Garden at Mytilene

Advantages include:

1. It's a stunningly beautiful masterpiece.
2. As such, no one is going to complain about the lead picture ever again, as there could hardly be a better picture.
3. Clearly represents the referent of the article: female same-sex romantic feelings.
4. Is in no way titilating or pornographic.

On the other hand, it does have disadvantages:

1. There's already a picture of Sappho in the article.
2. The person who painted it wasn't a lesbian.
3. That's all I can think of. Feel free to add more pros or cons.

Chrisrus (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well okay then. Let's use it! Chrisrus (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I will do it myself, but maybe it might be better if a lesbian approved of this change and would "do the honors" as it were. Chrisrus (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Checking in after the death of Dr. Sally Ride. They haven't yet, so I've added the painting. Personally I believe that a grid would be the most encyclopedic... and if lesbian Wikipedians won't step up to the plate, someone else will. kencf0618 (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Very good. I don't know what you meant by "a grid". What should we do with the previoius lead photo? Chrisrus (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

By "grid" I mean à la http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Brasileiros_%282%29.JPG. Such would arguably be more representative. kencf0618 (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

US-centric

In the discussions regarding Western views/history/developments, is very centred on US experience, to the almost complete disappearance of Western European (and specifically British) perspectives. EnglishBriarRose (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

New photos

I think we need some more photos that demonstrate the key differences between a lesbian and a straight women. I move to include more stimulating sexualized photos to enhance the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Be bold and do it.

I'm a Writer and you know it! :) (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yea, right. This is just someone who wants to add some porn. Troll, trollira lay. Paul B (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL!! Flyer22 (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides...there's enough "stimulating sexualized photos" in the Lesbian sexual practices article if one wants to look at them. Flyer22 (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Need more images

We really need to include new images that feature more attractive women possibly doing each other..for educational purposes. 75.187.116.238 (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Jade Rat

female homosexuality promotion

This section was archived by the bot and re-placed on the talk page by --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"Women generally exhibit greater sexual fluidity than men and find it easier to become physically and emotionally intimate with the same sex than men do"... WTF? no source for this statement which is a total lesbian POV and there is no "sexual fluidity" at all with men! this is propaganda! Big Donut (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's sourced several times throughout the article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I see several references to female sexual fluidity throughout the article, but little in the way of direct comparisons between men and women. I actually think this could be true. Could you point to a study that came to this conclusion? Even a respected psychological organization that has taken this view would help. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody responded for over 30 days. While there are numerous sources explaining what can summarized as "sexual fluidity" of some women, there are no sources which point to an unusually large amount of fluidity, or that directly compare men and women. Instead of removing the sentence, I think this could be better phrased as:

Women exhibit sexual fluidity and can become physically and emotionally intimate with the same sex.

This new summary removes the comparison to men, as well as numerically vague weasel words, such as great and generally. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There is research suggesting that women's sexuality is more fluid than men's and that they find it easier to become physically and emotionally intimate with the same sex than men do. See Erotic plasticity, for example. It's not like Moni3 was making this up; not only did she state that it's sourced several times throughout the article, it's easily verifiable from simply Googling the topic; refer to Google Books and Google Scholar. The new line is a bit silly because it says "and can become physically and emotionally intimate with the same sex." Well, yeah, it goes without saying that women can become physically and emotionally intimate with the same sex; that's what this article is about and is covered in the first paragraph.

I also object to this change by User:Chrisrus. Not about going with one picture, but about the change in caption. The previous lead image fits that caption better. The person who drew the painting and the couple it depicts should be in that caption if we are going to keep the previous caption; the artist/couple description should come first, though. But including both doesn't seem right, which is why I'd go with the artist/couple description. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: I removed this, per above. This version of the text by Elephanthunter simply was useless. Flyer22 (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Also tweaked the line again. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Miss (Jane) Hathway Gay (from the Beverly Hillbillies) ?

Propose (to one with rights to edit) editing the following (under TELEVISION):

"...early situation comedies used a stock character that author Stephen Tropiano calls "gay-straight": supporting characters who were quirky, did not comply with gender norms, or had ambiguous personal lives, that "for all purposes should be gay". These included Zelda from The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis, Miss Hathaway from The Beverly Hillbillies, and Jo from The Facts of Life."

to read:

"...early situation comedies used a stock character that author Stephen Tropiano calls "gay-straight": supporting characters who were quirky, did not comply with gender norms, or had ambiguous personal lives, that "for all purposes should be gay". These included Zelda from The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis, Miss Hathaway from The Beverly Hillbillies, and Jo from The Facts of Life (though it seems curious to include Jane Hathaway in this list - given her repeated expressions of unrequited infatuation with Jethro Clampett)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsusky (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no need for a disclaimer or commentary there. The fact that they could possibly have (or be suggested to have, especially unrequited) male relations doesn't make them any less of what was termed "gay-straight" by Tropiano. The citation doesn't really support the parenthetical suggested. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Butch & Femme Relationships

another issue i'm very surprised is not in the lesbian article is the issue of butch/femme relationships. very often lesbian couples contain one partner where the woman looks and acts female and the other looks and acts like a man (dress, hair, everything). with gay male couples i very very very rarely have seen a relationship where one man looks and acts male and the other acts female and dresses in women's clothing.

shouldn't there be some mention of this in the article? the reason i think it is taboo and not discussed is that the feminine women in the butch/femme relationship are actually bisexual (possibly even heterosexual) women who are choosing to be with butch masculine women due to often times past sexual abuse or various issues (often sexist anti-male feelings) with men in general. 24.193.117.138 (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, IP. Welcome back. The butch and femme dynamic is discussed in the Postwar years section. But since it's addressed there in a historical sense, I take it that you want it discussed in the modern sense, something about it in the Sexuality and lesbian identity subsection of the Current issues of lesbians section? I point out, though, that while this is a common dynamic and may, in some cases, be for the reasons you mentioned, in addition to some lesbian or bisexual-identified women simply being more sexually attracted to a more masculine look, it is also a LGBT stereotype. Plenty of lesbian relationships consist of two butches or two femmes, though more so the latter (two femmes). And there are a lot of gay male relationships where one partner is very feminine or somewhat feminine, although usually not dressing in women's clothing, and the other is very masculine or somewhat masculine. In fact, in the LGBT community, the terms "butch" and "femme" are also often applied to gay men. To discuss your beliefs about the butch and femme dynamic, we need WP:Reliable sources. Do you have any for the aspects of this dynamic that you want explored in this article? When I get a good chance to, I may add something about butch and femme in the "Sexuality and lesbian identity" section. But, like I stated, to include some of the material that you want included about it, we need reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Most Lesbians Have Sex With Men

why is this not mentioned in the article? a large percentage of lesbian (not bisexual) women enjoy sex with men. this is a taboo subject and it is understandable why the PC wikipedia wouldn't mention this in the article. from my own personal experience i can tell you of numerous "lesbians" who told me they engaged in either regular or occasional sex with males. for whatever reason they chose to identify as lesbian and not bi, although when i asked which gender they prefer they would almost always say women.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10597764 (this site says that 77.3 percent of lesbians have had sex with men. i wonder what percent of gay men have had sex with women, i'm guessing it's under 10 percent but who knows). 24.193.117.138 (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Women who identify as lesbian having sex with men is mentioned in the Lesbian#Sexuality and lesbian identity section. However, although the terms sexual identity and sexual orientation are often used interchangeably, the two are not always the same thing. Some gay men and lesbians identify as heterosexual before coming out, for example, and it is believed that some gay men and lesbians never come out about their sexual orientation. Further, there is debate about how to define bisexuality; whether or not it should be defined as anyone who has sexual attraction to both sexes, no matter how much they prefer one sex over the other, or as a person who is somewhat equal or definitely equal in their sexual attraction to both sexes, or whether a person who is able to get sexual pleasure from the sex they are not sexually attracted to (which is how some heterosexuals, gay men and lesbians describe their sexual interaction with the sex they are not sexually attracted to) should be classified as bisexual. Even you stated "lesbian (not bisexual)"...but then stated "lesbian" in quotation marks (scare quotes) as if to imply that the lesbian-identified women who have sex with men aren't really lesbians. We need consistent reliable, scholarly studies stating that "most lesbians have sex with men" before we can add that. And even then, we have to be clear if they are talking about lesbian sexual orientation or lesbian sexual identity. A lot of women (such as the women you've talked to) state that they identify as lesbian instead of bisexual because their sexual attraction to men is so minor and/or because they also don't have sex with men despite their sexual attraction to them. As for gay men and lesbians having engaged in sexual activity with the opposite sex... From what I have studied, most gay men and lesbians have engaged in sexual activity with the opposite sex; this is due to a number of reasons, ranging from heteronormative society to curiosity, or even rape (although a lot of people don't consider rape, corrective rape or any type of rape that involves physical force, as "having had sex"; it's sexual activity that was physically forced on a person). Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind "have had" (as in past behavior), which is what I was referring to above regarding gay men and lesbians having engaged in sexual activity with the opposite sex, as distinguished from "have" (as in behavior that is still practiced). Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

i don't mean to start an argument with you but how can you suggest gay men have sex with women at the same rate lesbians have sex with men? male sexuality (gay or straight) is known to be much less fluid therefore just like very few straight men have had sex with men very few gay men have had sex with women (aside from when they were younger/their first sexual experiences). but that's not what i'm referring to when i say "lesbians who have sex with men". what i mean is women 18 and older who enjoy sex with men but identify as lesbian for whatever reason. and yes i used quotation marks because i find it strange that these women identify as lesbian instead of bisexual. 00:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

another taboo issue i will bring up is the use of strap-ons by many lesbians. they are clearly a phallic shape and symbol yet there is no mention of this in the article and it's relation to some (not all) lesbians "needing" a certain something sexually that other women don't have. there should be more research done on this (especially by sociologists and people smarter than me) and the information possibly added into the article once it can be reliably cited by a wikipedia editor. 24.193.117.138 (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, IP. I did not state "at the same rate" and did not mean to imply it. I stated, "[M]ost gay men and lesbians have engaged in sexual activity with the opposite sex." Besides personal experience with the subject, I have researched the topic in reliable sources (both scholarly and general LGBT websites) over the years. There are only a few studies suggesting that women's sexuality is more fluid than men's. And Lisa Diamond, the woman who is usually cited for having reported that women's sexuality is more fluid, at times doesn't sound as though she's sure that women's sexuality is more fluid than men's. There are not "very few straight men [who] have had sex with men"; at least not heterosexual-identified men, emphasis on identified (meaning that is how they identify). This is why terms such as "down-low" and "men who have sex with men" exist. For example, it is well-documented that many self-identified heterosexual men will have sex with men in prison in the absence of female sexual partners; the same for heterosexual-identified women in prison with other women in the absence of male sexual partners. And, yes, I know that you were referring to women who identify as lesbian but continue to have sex with men; I already informed you that this information is in the article, and explained why these women identify as lesbian. It's the same for men with very minor sexual attraction to women. Their sexual attraction to the sex that they do not favor is so low that it makes no sense to them to identify as bisexual. A lot of such women will tell you that it feels like false advertisement to identify as bisexual because even though they can get sexual pleasure from a man, they are not truly romantically/sexually interested in men; thus, identifying as bisexual signals that they are open to the idea of being with a man in either a romantic or sexual sense. They do not want people, men in particular, to get this impression...because it is women that they truly want. Sexually-speaking, if they mention their sexuality, it is women they want to draw in, not men. They want the choice of drawing men in on their own time. Others, though they have minor sexual attraction to men, will not have sex with men at all. And then there are those who state that they have absolutely no sexual attraction to men, but do have sex with men on occasion. For some of these women, especially the last example, having sex with men is a "last resort" type of thing, something done when there is no choice of a female sexual partner; the lesbian show Lip Service featured this lesbian aspect, in the character Frankie Alan, which, even though it'd been made clear in the first episode that she practices this behavior, caused an uproar in the lesbian community when she finally made good on the occasionally-having-sex-with-men part on the series. This aspect of lesbian sexual topics always does cause such an uproar. But the matter of the fact is that sexual pleasure can be separated from sexual attraction; you mentioned strap-on dildos; that is a great example where sexual pleasure can be separated from sexual attraction, and is what Frankie Alan alluded to. A person can get sexual pleasure from a strap-on or other type of dildo, but they are not sexually attracted to either. Not usually anyway. This is exactly how some lesbians, not just fictional character Frankie, have described having sex with men.

There have also been gay men who stated that they were able to get a little sexual pleasure from having sex with a woman, usually while fantasizing about a man, but that they could not find women sexually attractive no matter how much they tried. Also regarding strap-on dildo use, most women, whether lesbian or not, don't need vaginal penetration. While vaginal penetration is pleasurable for a lot of women, the vagina does not have a lot of nerve endings and is not the most erotic female sexual organ (most women don't orgasm from vaginal penetration). In fact, most lesbians do not engage in dildo use. See this source (the Lesbian Sexual Activities portion). Masters and Johnson were the first to state that, and it has been replicated in other research since then. This Wikipedia article does point readers to other Wikipedia articles that deal with lesbian sexuality, and in particular lesbian sexual practices. Furthermore, going back to the topic of sexual identity, there are researchers who believe that no one is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, or at least that most people aren't, and, as such, identifying as heterosexual or homosexual is usually more so based on the sex that the person favors. Besides that, partially because "lesbian" is often not consistently defined in the same way by women who use the term to describe their sexuality, it often is not consistently defined in the same way by researchers; this of course means that it is often not defined as women who are exclusively sexually attracted to women, which is why the lead (intro) avoids doing that but it and the "Sexuality and lesbian identity" section do address this (the section more extensively, of course).

Anyway, while discussing this with you is interesting, I have to point out that Wikipedia talk pages are not supposed to be used as forums. See WP:NOTAFORUM. Article discussions at this site should be about what to add/what not to add to this article, and I've already gone over why we can't add "most lesbians have sex with men" to this article. Not unless we're using high-quality sources to state "It is suggested that most women who identify as lesbian have sex with men" or something very similar to that. But the source or sources would need to clearly state that this is a continual thing among these women, not simply that they had sex with a man at some point in their lives. And we'd need more opinions before adding such information, which is why I contacted Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies to weigh in on this. If you want to discuss the aspects of female sexuality that we've just touched on, meaning topics separate from what to add/not to add to this article, it is better that you continue that discussion at my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: I added in some things to my "4:25, 26 September 2012" reply. Flyer22 (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

And I changed the "Sexuality and lesbians" heading to "Sexuality and lesbian identity" (also changing my above mentions of the previous heading to reflect the current heading). Hopefully, no one moves that section to the end of the "Identity and gender" section; the "Identity and gender" section is more about what its title describes and historical aspects. The "Sexuality and lesbian identity" section is placed under "Current issues of lesbians" because it is a current issue. Flyer22 (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Noting here that it took a year, but I finally got around to adding text on this matter (from the source I cited above about a non-consistent definition of lesbian). An editor adding text to the article about the topic prompted me to tweak that editor's text and to add the aforementioned material. These edits document this (with the latter four being mine):[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. I might add a more recent source against that source, but no more text on this matter is needed in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

New section required

About lesbian schoolgirls, cheerleaders, maids, etc; including images of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.232.55 (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Lesbian vs. Gay woman?

Many women identify as gay. Lesbian scholars often state that "sexual orientation", while an element of lesbianism, is not a central part of the lesbian identity. Lesbianism is the general desire to associate with other women in all aspects of life, professional, social, and intimate. It often incorporates tenets of radical feminism. Seems the concept of lesbiansm should be severed from GLBT. The "L" is the only group which is inherently political and ideological. In contrast, gay men simply like other men. The very term "gay" means happy. I have never heard of a steriotype denoting the "happy lesbian" lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billturner1983 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Billturner1983. This talk page is for improving the article, not for any of our personal feelings on the topic (though personal feelings about the topic are sometimes expressed on this talk page while discussing improvements to the article). See WP:NOT A FORUM. But as for your statement about many women identifying as gay, yes, that is true. The Homosexuality and Gay articles address that homosexual women may identify as gay. But "gay" is still used more often to refer to gay men than to gay women, which is why scholars often use the words "gay and lesbian" and is why the "L" is in LGBT. Scholars also mostly designate lesbianism by sexual orientation (sexual attraction between women), sexual behavior (sexual activity between women), or identity (sexual identity being stated as lesbian), not mostly by "the general desire to associate with other women in all aspects of life, professional, social, and intimate." It's not largely defined by feminism and is not mostly defined by political aspects. So, yes, sexual orientation and sexual behavior are considered central aspects of lesbianism by many scholars, if not by most. Flyer22 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought this fact was actually in this article a few years ago. Could it have been removed? It seems logical that the fact that some women identify as gay women vs lesbian should also be in this article and not just the Homosexuality and Gay articles. These same women are: a) sexually attracted to other women; b) have sex with other women; and c) identify as a gay woman. By not mentioning this, the article may portray that because a woman fits A and B, then she automatically fits C. There's actually a sizable chunk of gay women who identify as gay women and not as lesbians. This is shown in the Findings From the Hunter College Poll of Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals. This poll gave female respondents the choice of "lesbian", "gay woman", or "bisexual". Of the non-bisexual women polled, over 25% chose "gay woman". Here's a link to the study: http://as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/hunter_college_poll.pdf. Its on page 11 (or 16 if you are using Adobe's search to find the page) under "What do we call ourselves?".

Certainly, there are varying reasons why some identify as a gay woman. These reasons include the political and radical feminism stereotypes that Billturner1983 mentions along with others. A desire for gender inclusive language is a reason for some. Even if the reasons aren't mentioned, the numbers seem significant enough to include identity as a gay woman in the Lesbian article with over 1/4 of the respondents identifying as "gay women" . Bitsnbytes (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This is fringe, and I doubt any reliable sources can promote your cause. In addition, wasn't there a case where a United States court held that women can't have sex with woman ( a biologically impossibility) and thus cannot be prosecuted under then legal sodomy law. Of course, we now know women can have sex with women, and it was used just to dismiss the sodomy prosecution. However, gay has almost always been defined as male-male, the word gay has that is, and what you have is OR. Personally, I believe it is fringe, but so far all things I say is fringe has been dismissed, and it is up to you to decide. Clearly, the article needs improvement, but just what improvement, I don't know... --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The Advocate/Guttmacher Institute text about lesbians having sex with men

Here are all the edits regarding this matter thus far, after Linemap added the material: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. And here are all the talk page comments, other than this one, regarding this matter thus far: [17][18][19][20]. Since no one has yet reverted Dark Mistress's asinine restoration of the "with 71% having engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse" material, and neither she nor Linemap brought the disputed material to this talk page as directed to do because they are the ones adding this material and insisting that it is needed in this article, I have brought it here.

First of all, this text is without context, and the following is why I argue that: The truth of the matter is that, due to a variety of factors, especially heteronormativity, most gay people (gay men and lesbians) identified as heterosexual and/or engaged in sexual activity with the opposite sex before coming out as gay. Furthermore, "lesbian-identified" and "lesbian" (as in "I'm only sexually attracted to women") are often two different things. I addressed these aspects in detail in the #Most Lesbians Have Sex With Men section above. So to have text stating that, in 1995, most lesbian-identified women in a The Advocate survey stated that they had sex with men is a transparent attempt by Linemap to discredit the lesbian identity. His reasons for having added the material are clear; he stated that "common knowledge is lesbians are not sexually attracted to males (and therefore penises) but that 71% statistic disproves that)" and that "human beings do not engage in sexual activity with people they are not at least somewhat attracted to (outside of people who are desperate for money and prostitute themselves)." I stated that those arguments are nonsense. And they are; reasons why are what I just noted. Despite that text being out of context, I fixed it up, only having cut the "with 71% having engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse" text; this is the text that Linemap and Dark Mistress have WP:Edit warred with me over. I cut that text because it is unnecessary to point out that 71% of the 77% of women engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse. The significant majority of the time (supported by various WP:Reliable sources, besides common sense) that a woman has sex with a man, penile-vaginal intercourse is involved; therefore, the addition of that material is trivial and is placing WP:Undue weight on that matter above other aspects reported in the source. Given Dark Mistress's comments with regard to me at the Sexual orientation article as IP 209.188.62.150, seen here, here and here, I assume no good-faith with regard to her having reverted me twice to restore the text; her snide "Didn't even read. Tsk-tsk..." edit summary adds to my opinion on that. I additionally cannot take anything she states about human sexuality/human sexual orientation seriously, given statements she made at the Sexual orientation article. If she responds here with such nonsense, similar to the nonsense she spewed in the #Lesbian vs. Gay woman? section above as Lesbiangirl123, it should not be surprising if I disregard her comments with a reply or ignore her. Flyer22 (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems kind of interesting... sadly however everything I do is pushed aside, Flyer22. You not only ignore everything I do, but you revert it so fast that I guarantee you never read it. Not only is it clear you're out to discredit everything I do, but also never take arguments at face value. Since you put your view above everyone's else, it's clear I don't listen to you. The source you are removing is fine, and I don't see how you want it removed that badly ether. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 18:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The primary study Guttmacher is referencing is PMID 10597764. This is based on responses to a survey published in The Advocate. The quality of data this type of study can produce is low. There is a very great risk of self-selection bias in both the kinds of individuals who will read The Advocate and the kinds of individuals who will respond to a survey like this. Even though we're referencing a Guttmacher writeup of it, I'd still treat it as a primary source. Guttmacher goes into some detail about the bias problems with this study, noting "The researchers affirm that because the study did not use probability sampling, its generalizability to all U.S. lesbians is limited. What is more, they acknowledge that respondents to sex surveys tend to hold more liberal sexual attitudes and be more sexually active than those who choose not to respond; this sample of magazine readers was also relatively affluent and well educated." Personally I think this is exactly the sort of primary source we shouldn't use in articles like this, especially not GA-quality. I do not at all recommend expanding on the article's use of this source, and would go as far as to recommend that its use be removed from the article altogether. Zad68 19:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The main issue here seems to be with the phrase, "with 71% having engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse", which was added after a sentence stating thst most Lesbians had had sex with a man at some time. It's true that this adds slightly to the content, since the study says that 77% have had a male sexual partner, implying that 6% had some sort of non-penetrative sex with that partner. However Flyer is right that the edit summary by Linemap is pretty silly: "[it's] common knowledge is lesbians are not sexually attracted to males (and therefore penises) but that 71% statistic disproves that)". All it proves is that Lesbians have tried heterosexual relationships before deciding that they are not for them, or that they have had sex with men for other reasons (to get pregnant; for intimacy; and yes, for money, in some cases). Still, the fact that Linemap's reasons are spurious, does not mean that the information is not worthwhile. Personally, I find it rather clumsy in the text. I think at best it could form part of a footnote, along with any information about what the remaining 6% said they did, if it exists. Zad68's points about the weakness of the source are also worth taking into account. If a better one cannot be found, it might be wiorth keeping simply because it is at least interesting data - however skewed - but the weaknesses of the source should be noted. Paul B (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see replies from those originally outside of this dispute. Dark Mistress, your criticisms of me are not correct. "Seems kind of interesting" is not a valid reason to include material (though Paul Barlow/Paul B's take on it being interesting data is supported by good rationale). I do not push aside everything you do; I didn't when you reached out to me on my talk page (though, as of today, I still have not yet read that email you sent me because I know that it is heavy, don't want to state anything that has the possibility of causing you harm while trying to help, and I have enough issues to deal with already in my own life). I push aside or ignore the invalid comments you make, such as at the Sexual orientation article. I have never reverted you until today (except at my talk page), as far as I know; you have never reverted me until today, as far as I know. I'm not out to discredit everything you do; I pay you no mind except for when you pay me mind. I do take arguments at face value, as long as they are rational, but, with regard to sourcing, Wikipedia is not about taking arguments at face value; it's about WP:Verifiability (a policy that you still don't seem to understand and/or agree with). I only put my view above another person's when I know that person's view is incorrect and I have evidence that only supports my view or supports my view significantly more; it's like WP:Due weight. I often do what I can to make sure that sexual matters in sexuality articles are accurate (though it takes me time to get around to some of those matters because I am just one person, sometimes don't feel like tackling them, and have a life outside of Wikipedia). For years at Wikipedia, I have kept editors from adding inaccurate information to sexual topics and/or skewing such topics to fit their own agendas, such as disregarding the "giving equal validity" aspect of WP:Neutral and thinking that being neutral means giving "equal validity" to things that are not on equal footing. I rejected you at the Sexual orientation article because your comments there are significantly WP:Original research. I reverted you here at the Lesbian article for the reasons I stated above. I wasn't removing a source; I was removing text.

Zad68, thank you. I agree.

Paul Barlow/Paul B, thank you as well. The "with 71% having engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse" text seems unneeded to me because of what I stated above; I don't think that the sources specify what other sexual acts the women engaged in (I'll read over those sources completely later), but those acts were likely anal sex or oral sex in addition to possibly being exclusively non-penetrative sexual activities. It's all sex either way, with a significant minority having not engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse. That stated, I wouldn't much mind the text being mentioned if, like you stated, it was clarified what the 6% of sexual activities were; still would probably be best as a footnote in that case, however. Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Earlier, I also meant to state that, given that so many gay men and lesbian women have engaged in sexual activity with the opposite sex before coming out as gay or lesbian, the most relevant information regarding "lesbians have had sex with men" data is data reporting lesbian-identified women who still have sex with men. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

not about article content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The result is that you are to hard to deal with... I remember you back, way back a very long time ago with you in the sex related articles. Although I didn't talk to you on an IP, it was clear that you hadn't changed. Atlas, I am standing back and ignoring this revert; I find it hard to waste time reverting something trivial as this, and I have better things to do. I accept that it will be removed; do I care? Nope, and seeing as it takes time, I won't reply back, ether. Since I'm short on time, and I'm busy creating .GIF I stop. I changed my mind on that revert; whatever happens, I don't care anymore. I'll just leave it to other editors to up to their discretion. See you around.... --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 00:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Yes, I am hard to deal with when it comes to people who consistently try to push their WP:Original research and/or POV messes in Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, I get no complaints about being "hard to deal with," as is clear from this section on my user page. As for seeing you around, I would rather we stay clear of each other...but I suppose that is too much to ask for. Flyer22 (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC) We do have a profound personality incompatibility, and I would probably do the same. Since you are unarguable, I cannot bear to talk to you; the result will only bring dispair and bad confrontations.... or get real quick to name calling. Because of this, and because of me stopping these arguments, I stopped chasing those areas of editing. I prefer to refrain from any serious comments, as I am VERY mean, and I repeat, very cold.. If I would show my true words, I wouldn't last very long on this site. Because of this, I developed an Isolated editing restriction, and one of these cores idea is to not argue. If I argue, I would go way to far and I would throw some very cold minded words, and I am obviously withholding my true words that I think of. I made that choice 2 years ago, on another site after I got restricted... Perhaps because of this, Flyer22 I no longer edit in the past as heavily as I used to as an IP. That was about 2 years ago when I stopped editing a lot, and only really edit to ether remove false information, or very rarely add sources. Some... way, however that I do not know.--Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 01:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There has been more than enough discussion about editors, and my suggestion would be to refocus on any improvements proposed for the article. Zad68 is correct that the "71% having engaged" text is not supported by a sufficiently reliable source, and however interesting the information may be to some readers, an encyclopedia should not report the data as established fact. If suitable sources are not available, the article should not introduce material that may misleadingly sound authoritative, particularly since it cannot be interpreted in any reasonable manner, as Paul B started to note. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Alast, it was relevant. This dispute is getting nowhere fast, and should be closed. This discussion is getting old real quick and is non-constructive. Also, e-mailed you Flyer22. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 12:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: Per commentary above concerning why the material in question is not beneficial or not necessarily beneficial to the article, I removed it a few minutes ago. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture caption

In the section 'Asia', is the term 'ladies' used to differentiate the subjects from 'women'?82.16.195.178 (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Paul

No apparent ref to "ladies", changed to "women" Jim1138 (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Male Lesbians

Shouldn't there be a section about men who feel 'trapped' inside their bodies? They feel marginalized by the lesbian community and treated with suspicion. 70.238.220.122 (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesbian-identified male. If they feel trapped inside of their bodies, that is transgender territory, but the men noted in the Lesbian-identified male article that briefly existed did not feel trapped in that way. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And even if information were included on this topic in this article, it should be with WP:Due weight; in other words, the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources do not recognize males as being lesbian. The most I can see this warranting in this article, if it should have any space in this article at all, is a sentence or brief paragraph in the Sexuality and lesbian identity section, not its own section. Flyer22 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The referent of this article is homosexual women. Are these people women or men? Are they homosexual or heterosexual? I don't think it's appropriate to include men or heterosexuals within the referent of this article. It seems strains the definition into meaninglessness. This term is vague enough as it is. Chrisrus (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's definition of 'gender'? I'd like to think that if someone has XY chromosomes but feels like a female and conducts themselves as such, that (s)he could be considered a lesbian. groovygower (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead sentence of this article says, "A lesbian is a female ...". I've added a wikilink there to the Female article, which says, "Female (♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces non-mobile ova (egg cells). Most female mammals, including female humans, have two X chromosomes." The Gender article says, "Gender is the range of physical, biological, mental and behavioral characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity." However, also see Gender identity, Gender role, Gender identity disorder, etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a transgender woman can be a lesbian. But like I stated above, the men noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesbian-identified male did not identify as transgender. That's why I refer to them as "men" and as "male." They identified as male and as men. And as for including men or heterosexuals in the Lesbian article, of course men and heterosexuals/heterosexuality are included in the article where relevant to discus the topic of lesbian/lesbianism. And, yes, there are women who identify as lesbian but who occasionally (or not so occasionally) have sex with men, which is something the article addresses in the Sexuality and lesbian identity section. Sexual identity, as the Sexual identity article makes explicitly clear, does not always match up with sexual orientation or sexual behavior. And in that regard, there are also so-called political lesbians -- heterosexual (or previously bisexual-identified) women who identify as lesbian on a political basis. The point with regard to any of these definitions is WP:Due weight; they should not be given WP:Undue weight in the article. The first paragraph of the lead not only makes clear the female and homosexuality aspect, but the self-identity aspect as well; so it covers all grounds, except boys and men. And it does not cover boys and men because to do so would be giving WP:Undue weight to a very minority definition of lesbian -- that boys and men can be lesbians too. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

A lesbian who enjoys having sex with men - even if it's infrequent - is not a lesbian, she's bisexual. If the sex is for a child or whatever and so she's not attracted to men, that means that she is still just a lesbian. groovygower (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Groovygower (talk · contribs), as you likely know, there are cases where gay men and lesbians state that, for years, they did not know that they were gay or lesbian. The sex was not terrible in all of these cases. In some of these cases, gay men and lesbians were able to achieve some sexual pleasure for reasons unrelated to sexual attraction, whether it's because (due to heteronormativity) they did not believe that they were gay or lesbian, or for some other reason unrelated to sexual attraction. For example, some gay men state that they would fantasize about having sex with a man while having sex with their wives or girlfriends, and that they (the men) achieved sexual pleasure that way. All of this tells scientists, tells us, that sexual pleasure, including sexual arousal, can be separated from sexual attraction; see this reliably sourced section in the Sexual arousal article, for example. If a person uses a sex toy for sexual pleasure, it's usually the case that the person is not sexually attracted to the sex toy. Like I stated in this now archived discussion (from 2012), for some women who identify as lesbian but have sex with men, they state similarly -- that the guy (or rather the appendage between his legs) is like a sex toy that they are not sexually attracted to. Other women identify as lesbian because they have very minor sexual attraction to men and don't want a romantic/sexual relationship with a man; identifying as bisexual would suggest that they do want that. Now you can criticize these women as much as you want and state that they are not truly lesbian, but like others (including me) discussed in the sections below, lesbian is a sexual identity that various women wear, not all of them strictly homosexual, and the Lesbian article rightfully addresses that matter. There are also asexual people who state that they masturbate or have sex and/or enjoy masturbating or somewhat enjoy having sex without sexual attraction.

Either way, per WP:NOT A FORUM, this talk page is not a talk page for our personal opinions on the topic of lesbianism and lesbian identity, or general discussion among us. So such discussion should not be had at this talk page unless it directly affects the Lesbian article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to 'just discuss'; there was a point in there. You've stated that 'Other women identify as lesbian because they have very minor sexual attraction to men and don't want a romantic/sexual relationship with a man; identifying as bisexual would suggest that they do want that', which I do not agree with BUT you've negated my point though as I have always assumed that 'lesbian' is synonymous with 'female homosexual', however you've just stated that this is not the case, therefore my 'point' is moot. Cheers! : ) groovygower (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, Groovygower (talk · contribs), lesbian is synonymous with "female homosexual"; just not always (though something being sometimes synonymous can be considered odd or whatever else). Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, by "identifying as bisexual would suggest that they do want that," I mean that a person identifying as bisexual suggests he or she is open to romantic/sexual relationships with men and women; otherwise, why identify as bisexual if you are only romantically/sexually open to one sex/gender over the other sex/gender? That's how the women in question I mentioned look at the matter; they identify as lesbian because, unlike identifying as bisexual, it can (and usually does) signify to the general public that they are only interested in women romantically/sexually. Flyer22 (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

For clarification if your point was 'Some men/women identify as homosexual because they have very minor sexual attraction to the opposite sex and don't want a romantic/sexual relationship with a the opposite gender; identifying as bisexual would suggest that they do want that', would you advocate that? I ask because you've stated that ' ' lesbian is synonymous with "female homosexual"; just not always'. I'm guessing you'll say that you wouldn't agree with that, but if you do then I'd say that there's still something to be discussed here, because if attraction is involved then we're on sexual orientation, and sexuality isn't determined by whom you'd like a relationship with... unless I'm mistaken, in which case I'm happy to be corrected if that is the case."

I'm assuming now that you think that to be incorrect, if that is the case then I'd appreciate educating if I'm wrong. I know a lot of people who are bisexual but only want relationships with one gender or the other - I like 'having sex with my hand' but I'm not attracted to it. If ATTRACTION, not romantic interest is involved then as far as I'm aware, that constitutes 'sexuality'. groovygower (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, this talk page is not the place to be discussing these matters at...unless directly related to improving the Lesbian article. But to answer your question: I'm not sure what you mean by I'd disagree with "lesbian is synonymous with 'female homosexual'; just not always." And, yes, I'm aware that some people with minor sexual attraction to one sex over the other identify as bisexual; that fact is also made clear in the Bisexuality article. I'm aware that some people with minor sexual attraction to one sex over the other identify as bisexual and only want a romantic/sexual relationship with one sex over the other and behave in that regard. But there is a difference between having a minor sexual attraction to one sex and being open to having a romantic/sexual relationship with that sex. For some people who have minor sexual attraction to one sex and significant sexual attraction to the other sex, they identify as gay or lesbian because they are not interested in having a romantic and/or sexual relationship with the sex they do not favor. For them personally, the terms gay or lesbian fit them better than bisexual does. Other people simply like the sound of gay, lesbian or queer better than bisexual; for example, there is a promiscuous stigma to the term bisexual (as various WP:Reliable sources discuss), and, as such, some people want to disassociate themselves with the term; other people disassociate themselves with the term bisexual for reasons noted in the Pansexuality article. Furthermore, like I noted in the aforementioned 2012 discussion linked above, some researchers and people in general disagree on what bisexuality means; it's defined differently to different people, as also shown by some of the pansexuality debates. Human sexuality concerns various things, and a part of it can be determined by whom a person would like a romantic and/or sexual relationship with. Sexual identity is a personal thing, and people view it in different ways, as made clear in the Sexual identity article. I don't necessarily advocate any of it, and I'm against people advocating something on Wikipedia; see WP:Advocacy. But I do support people's right to sexually identify the way that they want to. Flyer22 (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, it's been a while - I've been meaning to get back to this. First off, "Again, this talk page is not the place to be discussing these matters at...unless directly related to improving the Lesbian article." - please forgive me, but I thought that of course this is the case, otherwise we wouldn't be having a lengthy discussion about it! :)

Isn't this article about the objective definition of the word 'lesbian' as opposed to what a person identifies as?

I understand that the word 'bisexual' can be avoided by some people because of the way that some others view it (sadly), but the term 'sexuality' refers to sexual attraction, not potential relationship material does it not? For instance, I'm male, and if I had sex with both genders but prefered relationships with men, I could describe myself as 'gay', but I'd still actually be 'bisexual'. I have always thought that hetero/homo/bisexuality describes sexual attraction, but if we are going to classify these terms as preferring one or both genders in terms of 'relationship feasibility', then what can describe solely finding one or both genders sexually appealing? groovygower (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sexual attraction can refer to "potential relationship material"; this is because sexual attraction relates to what a person might find sexuality attractive, which can include a sexual relationship. For example, the Pansexuality article currently notes, "The term pansexuality is sometimes used interchangeably with bisexuality, and, similarly, people who identify as bisexual may 'feel that gender, biological sex, and sexual orientation should not be a focal point in potential [romantic/sexual] relationships.'"

We have been "having [this] lengthy discussion" because it has continued in spite of the WP:Talk guideline. The vast majority of this section is not about improving this article, but is rather about personal opinion, and this discussion between you and me at it should stop. And, no, I don't want to continue it elsewhere either. This article is about sexuality and sexual identity, as its sources make explicitly clear. Again, what you consider bisexual is not always what other people consider bisexual, and this talk page is not the place for this discussion unless directly affecting the article; it is not directly affecting this article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Planned revert explained: Definition

I will revert this edit after waiting an appropriate amount of time, http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&oldid=prev&diff=612402828. We shouldn't first define it as a noun and then say that it is also used as a noun. We should say that it's a noun, and then say it's also an adjective without first repeating that it's a noun because we've already said that. Also, we should state clearly and upfront that, simply stated, a lesbian is a homosexual woman unless there is some doubt that a lesbian is a homosexual woman. Chrisrus (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already removed the "noun is a noun" problem and fixed the WP:REFERS problem. Feel free to improve or revert to earlier versions. I think it is more encyclopedic to use the word as a noun or adjective, rather than describe all the parts of speech in a dictionary fashion. Bhny (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest: my objection to 'female' as a noun to refer to female humans is that it's dehumanising and non-specific. I actually prefer both your versions to my own; I'm going to try some further tweaks to address the issues being discussed. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. At times, "genderists" (if your pardon my term, I guess the word "sexist" is already taken) people such as radical feminist separatists and extreme MGTOWS, as they call themselves, "Men Going Their Own Way", to refer to the "enemy" gender: "males" and "females" instead of men and women. Used thusly, it really sounds dehumanizing. However, let's not go on a crusade because it depends on the context, but, as a rule, we shouldn't call them "males" and "females" where "men" and "women" would do. Also, it's probably going to be more rhetorically effective to simply state that "men" and "women" is simply more precise than "males" and "females", which are used for any animal, and leave it at that, instead of explaining about the derogatory connotations. Chrisrus (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

First, there was this and this matter, showing AlexTiefling asserting that "female" is not a noun; I pointed out that "female" is used as a noun, but left in AlexTiefling's wording (and, yes, AlexTiefling, I considered that you removed "female" because of those who consider it dehumanizing; completely POV). Then there was this and this matter with regard to Chrisrus and my reverting Chrisrus while pointing out that the term lesbian is used in the ways that Chrisrus removed, that no one is going to think that we mean a non-human animal when we use "self-identifies," and that, no, the term does not simply mean "a homosexual woman." According to researchers, it does not even primarily mean that, unless, by "homosexual," one means "any homosexual activity." We just went over this in the #Male Lesbians section above. As the Sexuality and lesbian identity section makes perfectly clear, the term lesbian is not used consistently by women or by researchers; like this source used in that section makes explicitly clear, researchers say that there is no standard definition of lesbian because "[t]he term has been used to describe women who have sex with women, either exclusively or in addition to sex with men (i.e., behavior); women who self-identify as lesbian (i.e., identity); and women whose sexual preference is for women (i.e., desire or attraction)" and that "[t]he lack of a standard definition of lesbian and of standard questions to assess who is lesbian has made it difficult to clearly define a population of lesbian women." How and where study samples were obtained can also affect the definition.

The good thing about Moni3, who brought this article to WP:Good article status and the Stonewall riots article to WP:Featured article status, is that she understands the literature on lesbian sexuality and other LGBT matters. That's why she specifically had the lead not simply state "a homosexual woman" for its first line, which is not fully or even largely representative of the current state of the article. Chrisrus changed it back to "a homosexual woman" for its first line, but at least that first line still covers self-identifying as a lesbian, like it should. Might as well remove "primarily or exclusively," though, since I added that to get across the fact that a woman who some might call bisexual may also identify as a lesbian. Either way, now we have a lead that not only excludes mentions of girls, making "lesbian" out to simply be a woman thing, and partly because AlexTiefling seemingly objects to any mention of human females (or "female humans," depending on the grammar) as, well, "females," and partly because Chrisrus thinks readers will think we are referring to non-human animals, we have a lead that excludes the other primary ways that the term lesbian is used, leaving some of that to the lead image caption instead. For the record, I also considered that "female" can cover non-human animals (see my December 20, 2013‎ edits that show me going over different ways to word the definition); it's certainly sometimes used in the literature, but then I thought about common sense. Common sense tells me that readers are going to have the common sense to know that we are referring to human females. And as for "female" vs. "woman," that feminist debate is somewhat ridiculous, in my opinion. "Woman" often (not always) does not work when we are talking about girls and women. And "lesbian" is most assuredly also about girls. Furthermore, "woman" is gendered and therefore any man who wants to identify as a woman for one day can, with that self-identification being perfectly valid. "Woman mayor" does not sound right to me, while "female mayor" does. And if we want to state that "female" is too clinical... Well, yes, we use it in a lot of WP:MED and WP:Anatomy articles, considering that it's often very appropriate in those cases.

There was also this and this matter showing Bhny referring to WP:REFERS and WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and me responding to that. As has been told to Bhny by different editors, including in this December 2013 discussion, it is not a WP:NOTDICTIONARY problem to include primary definitions in the lead or to have a Definitions section in an article, especially if those lead definitions summarize the article and therefore adhere to WP:Lead. In fact, Bhny often moves definitions to the lead, asserting that the lead should define the topic, even if significant elaborations of the definitions are better left to the lower part of the article. So why Bhny has objected in this case is beyond me. As for any WP:REFERS problem, WP:REFERS (which is an essay, not a guideline or a policy) is about the first line of the lead and I took care of that problem months ago after Bhny made an edit that clearly needing tweaking; Bhny thanked me for that edit via WP:Echo. It seems that I introduced Bhny to that essay, considering that from then on out Bhny started to apply that essay to Wikipedia articles and altered that essay at one point. Anyway, I altered the title of this discussion above with ": Definition" so that the subheading is clearer as to what this discussion is about. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're making by saying "any man wants to identify as a woman for one day can"; that's really not how trans identity works. I agree with you, though, that including 'girl' somewhere in there would be good. If you can see a good way to work it in, please go for it. My terse edit summary claiming that 'female' wasn't a noun was too simplistic. I'm a descriptivist, and it's obvious that people use it as a noun. What I was driving at was that it was very far from being the best noun. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

AlexTiefling, I know how transgender identity works; my point was to indicate that "woman" is gendered. Keep in mind that transgender is an umbrella term for all kinds of transgender aspects, including genderqueer people (some who state that they feel like a man one day or a woman the next day, or are a combination of genders). Chris Crocker is one example. As for the lead, I mainly disagree with Bhny's removal; I feel that some of that, if not all of it, should be added back. I obviously would prefer that "girls" be mentioned in the lead, but I can accept simply using "woman," especially since authoritative sources on sexual orientation, such as the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association, as seen here and here, do the same. Flyer22 (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I think we may be approaching a consensus version of the introduction. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The American Psychiatric Association source doesn't state "woman" for "lesbian" initially, but it does initially state "A person attracted to another person of the same sex is said to have a homosexual orientation and may be called gay (both men and women) or lesbian." Anyway, yes, we are close to a WP:Consensus; I state "close" because I still object to Bhny's removal, which I feel has the lead lacking in the scope of the term lesbian; not to mention that stating "A lesbian is a homosexual woman" and "A woman having the primary attribute of female homosexuality may be characterized as a lesbian" is redundant; Chrisrus changed that latter part to "Used as adjective, it describes a noun as characterized by female homosexuality.", which is better wording, but somehow still lacking in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll ago ahead and remove the WP:Overlinking of "homosexuality" from the first paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The proposed change to the opening sentence doesn't flow as well as the previous version, so reverted. Zad68 23:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point I hadn't thought about. If we say a lesbian is a homosexual woman, it does technically exclude underage girls. I hadn't thought about that. That's not perfect either. So "homosexual female" does have that over "homosexual woman". On the other hand, "homosexual female", as stated earlier, implies animals as well, and just sounds worse. I can see both sides of this. However, I think it's definately best for the lead to say "...is a homosexual (either "woman" or "female") before going into the longer noun clause. Chrisrus (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Regarding your latest edit, adding back "homosexual," I agree that "homosexual woman" sounds better than "homosexual female," which is partly why I added "woman" back. The other reason I added it is because (as stated in my edit summary) "girls" is covered in the lead again, so "woman" is not a problem; it's rather the initial definition. I've often told Wikipedia editors that the initial definition does not have to mean that it negates the definitions mentioned after it (similar wording order is done in dictionaries). I'm usually for going with the most common definition for the first line anyway, per WP:Due weight. Not to mention that, like the Woman articles notes, the term woman can at times refer to girls (especially post-pubescent underage girls). Regarding "females," I think that it's best to change the first instance of "female" (which is plural in the article) to "women"...for consistency with the first instance of "woman." But I feel that the second instance of "female" is fine, since, like I mentioned above, no one is going to think that we mean a non-human animal who self-identifies as a lesbian. I also understand what you mean about it being redundant to state that the term lesbian can be used as a noun, when that's already clear from the first line (to those who understand what a noun is anyway). Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I dread replying to you when it will be met with a wall of words and strange links to my past edits, but anyway WP:REFERS is about words used inappropriately in the introduction, not just the first sentence, and all this waffle- "The term is also used as a noun....or as an adjective, to describe" is exactly thing that it is trying to prevent. It is also poor writing. Bhny (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If people are too lazy to read my wall of text, then that is on them. But many editors at this site appreciate a thorough reply and don't let WP:Too long, didn't read get in their way. My wall of text apparently didn't get in the way of AlexTiefling and Chrisrus reading it. As for "strange links to [your] past edits," there's nothing strange about them; for example, the WP:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Writing better articles pages are on my WP:Watchlist (WP:REFERS is a section of the latter page). And your user page, was, for a time, on my WP:Watchlist as well. And if an editor does not learn from his or her past mistakes, I will remind that editor of one or more of those past mistakes by pointing to them. And WP:REFERS does only refer to the first sentence (generally anyway), as indicated by the examples there at that page before anyone (such as you) tries to change them, and as seen in practice. If it was about the lead as a whole, it would be telling us that we can't specifically refer to a definition, and with those descriptors, in a lead at all, which is flat out wrong. I've been using the WP:REFERS essay longer than you and I am far more familiar than you are with how editors apply it. And again, it is only an essay, which is why I almost always note it as an essay when I use it, as seen in that aforementioned edit you thanked me for via WP:Echo. The main point that WP:REFERS is getting across is use–mention distinction; as long as that distinction is applied, there is no problem with "refers to" language (as long as the editor keeps in mind that, unless the article is about the term, it generally should not begin with "refers to" wording). The last line of WP:REFERS clearly allows WP:WORDSASWORDS in the introduction. As for the rest, I already addressed that above. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)‎

"The term is also used as a noun....or as an adjective, to describe" is just bad writing and I'm sorry that you can't see that. Bhny (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere above did I state that "The term is also used as a noun....or as an adjective, to describe" is good writing; so your being sorry about my failing to see it as bad writing is solely your interpretation. Maybe editors who approved that writing as WP:Good article status writing should have seen it as bad writing, if it truly is bad writing. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have the solution: First, you've right, "female" is better in the aspect that it doesn't exclude girls, as the word "women" does. That's all you really needed to say because it's convincing enough just to point out that not only women but also girls can be rightly called lesbian, so that's your semantic precision problem right there. At least older girls, anyway, can be lesbians, not just women. Anyhow, trying it different ways just now, I notice that the negative connotations associated with speaking of "males" and "females" is far less pronounced when you use it as an adjective. I should explain: For example, if you were to say "male nurse", or "female prison guard", that's the natural way to say that. As an adjective, it doesn't sound the same as using it as a noun, like, "I saw three (fe)males walking down the street." See how that sounds odd. You'll see what I mean when I do the edit. I figured out a way to use it as an adjective and omit the word "woman" but still maintain the same naturalness. I'll do it now. Please keep up the article-improvement focused discussion, and, as always, feel free to edit! Chrisrus (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I obviously had more to comment on than that semantics issue. I also considered wording the first line as: " A lesbian is a girl or woman who expresses romantic or sexual attraction to other females, whether primarily or exclusively, or a female who self-identifies as lesbian." But then I thought about the implication of "girl" in the line -- how "girl" can refer to a minor at any age and some people may object to indicating that a five-year-old girl, for example, could express romantic or sexual attraction to other females (though a lot of women have stated that they knew that they were lesbian or bisexual at that early of an age). As for your edit of "female homosexual"... That's not better, in my opinion. For one, you partly objected to "female" because it can include non-human animals. Well, some researchers refer to some non-human animals as "homosexual," not just the animals' behavior as homosexual; see the Homosexual behavior in animals article. And I also thought about how the term homosexual is offensive to some people; see the Gay article, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual. But, yeah, I now feel that it would be better to sick with "woman" for the first instance of "female" and the first instance of "females." Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I did that and made some other edits, too. Feel free to check the article history for a look at each. I'm taking a break now, so, as always feel free to edit. I'm listening to you; you have some good ideas for further article improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Did what, Chrisrus? The first instance of "female" and the first instance of "females" are still currently there, instead of "woman." Yes, I saw the other most recent changes you made; all good changes. Have a nice break; I understand needing one of those after editing Wikipedia (many of us do). Flyer22 (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this edit, though; it removed mention of girls, and added lesbian community. How is "or belongs to the lesbian community" not redundant? Besides that, it redirects to the LGBT community article. Another thing is this: I don't like straying from what the sources state. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed "or belongs to the lesbian community" as redundant; if she is a lesbian, she is of course a part of the lesbian community (whether she participates in it or not). I'm fine with you adding "lesbian community" somewhere in the lead, but I don't think that it fits in the sentence I removed it from, or that it is needed in the first paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok.Chrisrus (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the word "female", used as a noun, sounds stilted to me. On the other hand, "woman" doesn't necessarily exclude adolescent female humans. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

With regard to "woman" including adolescent female humans, I stated similarly above (my "02:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)" post); that's partly why I changed my mind about "woman" being used. If we use "woman," I still feel that we should state "girls" somewhere in the first paragraph, though, since so many people don't think of (and actively exclude) adolescent girls when they think "woman" or when they use the term in speech or writing. The far more common usage of the term woman, as the Woman article points out, is to refer to an adult woman (not simply a female who can be considered adult because she is pubescent or post-pubescent, as in "a biological adult"). Flyer22 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

...or a female who self-identifies as lesbian...

I worry about "...or a female who self-identifies as lesbian..." in the lead. I worry about the effect on the reader. It doesn't make sense. I should explain. For example, if you were to say "A genius is a person who ......., or anyone who self-identifies as a genius" or "A Native American is a person who...., or anyone who self-identifies as a Native American" See what I mean? A reader is going to look at that and think that it's absurd, because s/he'll think "People aren't things just because they say think they are that thing." If s/he goes on to read the entire article, s/he will get that about all the gray areas and vagueries and moments where a person could be somewhat a lesbian and somewhat not at the same time. Yes, things can get complicated and sometimes it's not clear whether everyone fits the definition perfectly or not. But that's to be expected! I should explain. A table is what it is, even though that there are plenty of things that might either be tables or not, it's hard to say, it depends. Or take for example the referent dog. There are things such as dingoes and wolfdogs and so on that might be dogs or which aren't. These things are best dealt with in the body of the article, where they belong, not in the lead. Leaving that there, the reader could rightly think that this is a ridiculous article, because just because a person says she's a lesbian doesn't mean she really is one. She might not be telling the truth, or she could be confused or wrong. The thing about the self-identification is, as it says further down in the article, studies on lesbian health and such nowadays such quite rightly don't try to identify them by observation or something. That wouldn't work. but only classify a person as a lesbian if she self-identifies as one. It's the best way to do such research. That doesn't mean that such researchers are really saying that the definition of "lesbian" is "anyone who says "I'm a lesbian". We should remove this from the lead because it's too confusing and complicated for the lead. Chrisrus (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2014‎ (UTC)

I understand your concern, but we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, with WP:Due weight, at Wikipedia over our personal opinion. And many WP:Reliable sources, especially when discussing sexual orientation, make it clear that sexual identity, which is not necessarily the same thing as sexual orientation, defines what a heterosexual, lesbian, gay man or bisexual person is...in addition to sexual orientation. Not only is this made explicitly clear in the rest of the lead (past the first paragraph, which means the lead does elaborate on it), but also in the Sexuality and lesbian identity section lower in the article. I told you in the #Planned revert explained: Definition section above that the term lesbian does not simply mean "a homosexual woman." According to researchers, it does not even primarily mean that, unless, by "homosexual," one means "any homosexual activity." As the Sexuality and lesbian identity section addresses, the term lesbian is not used consistently by women or by researchers; like this source used in that section makes explicitly clear, researchers say that there is no standard definition of lesbian because "[t]he term has been used to describe women who have sex with women, either exclusively or in addition to sex with men (i.e., behavior); women who self-identify as lesbian (i.e., identity); and women whose sexual preference is for women (i.e., desire or attraction)" and that "[t]he lack of a standard definition of lesbian and of standard questions to assess who is lesbian has made it difficult to clearly define a population of lesbian women." How and where study samples were obtained can also affect the definition.

Sexual orientation vs. (or simply compared to) sexual identity is in the literature, in the vast majority of studies about sexual orientation. Read the Sexual identity article, for starters. As also indicated by the American Psychological Association, "lesbian" is not technically a sexual orientation, though it's often indicated as or stated to be one; "homosexual" is a sexual orientation (both a sexual orientation and sexual identity). "Lesbian," like "gay," is more so a sexual identity, which is the main reason why it, like "gay," is not listed on Template:Sexual orientation, but is listed on Template:Gender and sexual identities (the sexual identities that are listed on Template:Sexual orientation are only there because they represent non-binary categories); the term lesbian describes a homosexual woman and other women with female same-sex romantic/sexual attraction who may identify as lesbian. Yes, a woman who says that she is a lesbian is counted as a lesbian. Anyone who claims a sexual identity or sexual orientation is counted as that sexual identity or as having that sexual orientation, since there is no mind-reader device to tell us who is "truly" heterosexual, lesbian, a gay man or bisexual. Furthermore, many women who some would call bisexual identify as lesbian. It's extremely common for a woman who has a bit of sexual attraction to a man to identify as lesbian (as also shown at sites such as AfterEllen.com, where heated debates have gone on between lesbians/lesbian-identified women on the matter); the majority of these women who have a little bit of sexual attraction to men identify as lesbian because they are primarily romantically/sexually attracted to women (which, again, is why I'd added "primarily or exclusively" to the lead, though it's context is changed now since your wording has it implying that a homosexual woman may not be exclusively romantically or sexually attracted to women). These women believe that identifying as bisexual is false advertisement, since they don't truly want a man romantically or sexually; so they identify as lesbian. I won't be agreeing to remove a core way (sexual identity) that the term lesbian is defined from the first paragraph of the lead. And per WP:Lead, it should be in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. This is helpful and interesting. Please be assured that I am aware of the things you say about how it works on Wikipedia. At the moment we are talking about the lead, which some prefer to spell "lede". As you probably know, we don't ideally cite leads, the lead should basically be a good summary of the rest of the article, and, in turn, the article a good summary of the WP:RSes, with in-line citations where appropriate, as you know. So I can't really take what you say on this talk page and summarize it in the lead, I can only take the whole article, and base the lead on that. I'm just reading the article body and trying to keep summarize it in the lead. If you can get all the above ideas from the sources to be a good summary of the body, then I must support having the lead say that as well. Chrisrus (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, where you traded out "identity (social science)" for "sexual identity," I also thought about that, but I held off on doing so because "sexual identity" was already linked in the lead and it seemed more relevantly linked where sexual identity is mentioned later in the lead (especially since the specific word sexual identity is first mentioned there). But, anyway, since you linked it higher, I went ahead and de-linked the second instance (per WP:Overlinking). I'm fine with your having linked it right there at the beginning. As for the lead as a whole, it does adequately summarize the article, including the sexual identity aspect, which is why it passed as a WP:Good article; the lead and the article as a whole is pretty much the same as when the article passed as a WP:Good article on February 25, 2009. That stated, if you think we should elaborate a bit on the "sexual identity not always lining up with sexual orientation" aspect in the paragraph that goes into detail about sexual identity, I'm fine with that. But the lead has one decent-sized paragraph (the first paragraph) and three big paragraphs, and, per WP:Lead, the lead should typically be limited to four paragraphs; expanding any of those big paragraphs any further would lead to a paragraph that certainly needs to be split or condensed. As for citations being in the lead, like the WP:CITELEAD section of WP:Lead states, whether the lead needs citing or not is a case-by-case matter; it often is best to cite the lead in the case of contentious material. See the lead of the Circumcision article, for example. The definition of a lesbian can be contentious, as this discussion section clearly shows, so it is cited in the lead; it's obviously the only part of the lead that is cited. I don't think that we need to cite any other parts, though there are other parts of the lead that can be contentious. If any editor disputes any of that, then we should consider citing it even though it is cited lower in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 016:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

a lesbian is "a female who self-identifies as lesbian"

This is logical fallacy. It is begging the question of what is a lesbian. I guess what is really meant by this is that some women who are not lesbians identify as lesbians. And that is good and fine and we can say that. If a short person identifies as a tall person it doesn't mean that they are tall. All it means is they think of themselves as tall. Bhny (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You needed to start a new section on this? As for your commentary on the matter, we already address in the lead what a lesbian is. And I already thoroughly addressed sexual identity in the #...or a female who self-identifies as lesbian... section above. If you don't understand what I stated there, then I don't know what else to state to you on the matter. But I won't be agreeing to remove a core aspect of lesbian identity (sexual identity). And we are not going to state that "these women identify as lesbian, but they are not really lesbian," therefore invalidating their sexual identity, especially since none of the WP:Reliable sources state that. You are confusing sexual orientation with sexual identity. And like I stated above, lesbian is a sexual identity. I suggest you read the Sexual identity article, and research on lesbian identity to boot. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about the logic of the sentence, not the content. This is all in the first sentence, so the circular fallacy is currently part of the definition. My suggestion- Some women who do not fit this definition may identify as lesbians. Bhny (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what the source states: "self-identified"? Do you have RS stating otherwise? If not, please let the matter drop. Getting on to OR, it's not exactly practical to test for "experiencing love or sexual attraction for women". People often take self-identified descriptors at face value. If I ask a women out and she says "I'm a lesbian", I'm not going to push the issue. I don't see what the problem is with that statement. Jim1138 (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: Bhny, your suggestion would still be straying from the sources and invalidating those women's sexual identity as lesbian; this is because the term lesbian, like I stated above, is used to refer to homosexual women and to other women who have a romantic/sexual attraction to women. A woman's sexual identity as lesbian is usually valid to her, no matter what reason she has for identifying as lesbian or if others don't see her as a true lesbian. And in that respect, it's similar to gender identity. Many people don't see Chelsea Manning (previously known as Bradley Manning) as a woman, but Manning identifies as a woman. In the same way that it would not be appropriate to state on Wikipedia that a trans woman does not fit the definition of a woman, it is not appropriate to state on Wikipedia that a woman who, for example, has a bit of sexual attraction to men but self-identifies as a lesbian is not a lesbian. Sexual identity is a personal thing. To some women who you would probably call bisexual, they are lesbian because, to them, the term lesbian fits them better than the term bisexual (the "primarily romantically/sexually attracted to women" example I gave above). I understand that just about every woman who is listed as lesbian has identified as lesbian, and so "self-identified" can seem like a logical fallacy, but sources do use that term; it's used in the source I mentioned above about lesbian identity. And it's used in the Sexuality and lesbian identity section in the Lesbian article because those sources use the term. And the reason I stated "just about" for "every woman who is listed as lesbian" is because some researchers will list bisexual-identified women as lesbian, like the aforementioned source notes; that bisexual case is the only case that I can see it being appropriate to state that the term lesbian does not fit all women who have been identified as lesbian. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

From my reading, I don't think the body establishes that definition of the word "lesbian" is "anyone who thinks they are a lesbian". It's very clear from this article that, if a person is a woman, and also homosexual, she's a lesbian, by definition, all other facts be damned. Of course, there could be many gray areas in which it might not be clear whether that person really is so clearly woman, or whether that person is really %100 homosexual in every way; cases where a person might or might not be one depending on how you look at it and exactly where one draws the line. Except for proper nouns, that's true about the referent of pretty much all articles on Wikipedia. For example, there are spoons that might not fill the definition perfectly, but that's not part of the lead of that article. You give the primary definition in the lead. It's pretty clear, however, that all it takes to be a lesbian is to say you are is how people should behave in daily life, obviously, in order to be nice and get along with other. If someone says they are a lesbian, why question it? That's just being a jerk. But we're not meeting new friends here. We're writing an encyclopedia. I think what is needed is to spell out exactly what the clause in question is trying to say, which can't possibly be that all that a lesbian is nothing more that one who so identifies oneself, it renders the definition meaningless. For example, there was a suggestion here to include so-called "male lesbians". We decided not to include them, because to be an actual, not metaphorical, lesbian, you have to be female, by definition, at least in some conceivable sense of the word "female", which is not always clear, and that the term "male lesbian" was just a sort of analogous use of the word, not literal, and therefore outside of the scope of this article, because by definition a person whose maleness is absolutely clear is not a lesbian. Chrisrus (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The WP:Reliable sources in the article establish that the term lesbian, in addition to referring to a homosexual woman, includes a woman who self-identifies as a lesbian. We already went over this in the section above. I'm not sure if you are not understanding something about what the lesbian identity source I provided above says, or are ignoring it. That source (which is a very good source about lesbian health and lesbian identity) is explicitly clear that there is no true standard definition of lesbian and that self-identity is a core aspect of identifying as lesbian. It also shows that it's very likely that the vast majority of women who identify as lesbian are not 100% homosexual. Some researchers debate whether a person can be a 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, by the way. I have no problem adding two of the sources from the lower body of the article (whether from the Sexuality and lesbian identity section or another section in the article), or two newer sources from Google Books, to that first paragraph in the lead to further support "self-identifies." I reiterate that the self-identity aspect is a big deal, which is why it is elaborated on (not simply mentioned) in the lead and there is a section on it in the article. It is very much WP:Lead material. It's not at all comparable to your spoon example. And comparing tables, spoons or other such objects to the complicated topic of sexual identity or gender identity is highly dubious. I saw such highly dubious comparisons during the Chelsea Manning Wikipedia debates, and I still see such comparisons on Wikipedia regarding Chelsea Manning.

Once again, I remind people to stop confusing sexual orientation with sexual identity; the term lesbian is as much of a sexual identity as the terms gay and queer are, and it is used by all types of women to indicate their sexual orientation or simply their sexuality. At Wikipedia, with regard to Wikipedia articles, no one gets to state that any of these women are not truly lesbian. Not unless a WP:Reliable source states that. And if a WP:Reliable source does state that, it is not WP:Lead material because it is not WP:Due weight-compliant. We didn't add "male lesbian" because not only did the idea of including that get no valid support, it is far from being WP:Due weight to include it. Including self-identification in the lead, or anywhere else in the article, is not stating that all there is to a lesbian is a female who self-identifies as a lesbian; the rest of the lead before that point makes clear that there is more to being a lesbian. And so does the rest of the lead after the first paragraph. All that the self-identification parts of the lead are doing is summarizing identity aspects of the article, especially the Sexuality and lesbian identity section. Regarding your commentary in this discussion section, I don't know what else to do, except to, via WP:Echo, call on Siawase and Asarelah, who seem to understand LGBT topics as well as I do, and to remind you to try not to impose your personal opinion on this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please pinpoint the specific language in the Sexuality and Lesbian Identity section you are referring to. Chrisrus (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why I need to, when it's there plain as day, and when part of it is quoted wording from the source above. Flyer22 (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 pinged me, and I've been following this discussion on and off (no time to read all of it, so apologies if I'm repeating something that's already been said) but maybe try to take it back to who we are writing the lead for? I can parse "or a female who self-identifies as lesbian" because I'm already familiar with the different facets of sexual orientation/sexual identity/sexual behavior. But most readers are not going to have that background knowledge going in. I think it would be more helpful to readers to explicitly spell out what we mean by using the term sexual identity. Not sure on the wording exactly, but right now the start of the lead refers first to sexual orientation, then to sexual identity in an oblique way, and the next sentence would include instances of "lesbian" being used to refer to behavior (as in "lesbian sex" or "lesbian kiss") but it doesn't spell that out. Something like "Lesbian is used to refer to sexual orientation, sexual identity, as well as behavior" would be much clearer. Siawase (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "sexual identity" has been WP:Pipelinked under the "identifies" part of "self-identifies." I mentioned that the rest of the lead (past the first paragraph) elaborates on identity/sexual identity; the rest of the lead is where I think any lead elaboration on the material should go. The first paragraph is obviously meant as a basic introduction; what is mentioned there is expanded on after that first paragraph. That is a common approach for Wikipedia leads. We should have more faith in our readers reading past the first paragraph for further detail. And it's obviously their decision to only read the first paragraph. I'm against using "refers to" language for the first sentence, per what was noted about WP:REFERS language in the section immediately above this one. For my "016:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)" post in that section, I stated that "if [one thinks] we should elaborate a bit on the 'sexual identity not always lining up with sexual orientation' aspect in the paragraph that goes into detail about sexual identity, I'm fine with that. But the lead has one decent-sized paragraph (the first paragraph) and three big paragraphs, and, per WP:Lead, the lead should typically be limited to four paragraphs; expanding any of those big paragraphs any further would lead to a paragraph that certainly needs to be split or condensed." Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The "self-identifies" aspect appear to be supported by reliable sourcing so should remain included. Maybe the wording could be improved to flow better but the mention of this aspect needs to remain. Zad68 18:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no argument against self-identity. The argument is that a definition can't use the word to define itself. The first sentence actually contains two definitions. the second being that a lesbian is "a female who self-identifies as lesbian". This is circular and not logical. I have already suggested a re-wording for a second sentence- Some women who do not fit this definition may identify as lesbians. Bhny (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I mostly don't understand your objection and have already refuted your suggested wording above. You still don't see why your suggested wording is wrong, but to re-suggest it obviously is not a solution. As for the sourcing that Zad68 is referring to, besides sources in the article, everyone can refer to these Google Books sources on the importance of sexual identity with regard to defining lesbian and the importance of the exact "self-identifies" wording. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read Circular definition Bhny (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

A "Zblwoof" is a person who says they are a "Zblwoof". How does that explain to the reader what a Zblwoof is? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Bhny, do read the sources I've pointed to. They absolutely show that the word lesbian can and is used to define lesbian, and that the way that is done is with the wording "self-identifies as lesbian" or "lesbian-identified."

Also, the "romantic or sexual attraction to other females" part is not supposed to be referring solely to homosexual females. Chrisrus's semicolon messes up the lead a bit. With that semicolon, it's as if we are stating that a female homosexual is either one who experiences romantic or sexual attraction to other females or simply one who identifies as lesbian. While some females may identify as lesbian without experiencing romantic or sexual attraction to other females, that is not the norm. Before Chrisrus's changes to the lead, the lead read as: A lesbian is a female who expresses romantic or sexual attraction to other females, whether primarily or exclusively, or a female who self-identifies as lesbian." It now reads as: "A lesbian is a female homosexual; one who experiences romantic love or sexual attraction primarily or exclusively for other females, or a female who self-identifies as lesbian." I suggest that it be worded as: "A lesbian is a female homosexual or a female who self-identifies as lesbian; one who experiences primary or exclusive romantic love or sexual attraction to other females." Or something like that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

A circular definition is empty. It has no meaning. We don't have to copy erroneous empty definitions from sources. A word cannot be used to define a word. That is a fact of language. Bhny (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22: Looking at the sources, I'm not really seeing the support you seem to see for the truncated, circular definition you use here. From what I can see, they use self-identification as one element of more nuanced and complex definitions, and as an "also" rather than the "or" you used here, ie "a homosexual woman who also self-identifies as a lesbian." Can you point to the specific sources that you think support your definition? Siawase (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying there is no support for our current circular definition? Basically, I think we need to remove self-identification from our definition and then supply a sourced non-circular sentence explaining self-identification. Bhny (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(E.C) The whole phrase is also pretty insulting, as it appears to include a value judgement: some people are lesbians, but some people who aren't real lesbian might think they are. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

What is your suggested wording? Bhny (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

IdreamofJeanie: I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Flyer22 is trying to avoid, only this wording may not be the most effective way to do so. Siawase (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Bhny, though you sometimes have good ideas for the leads of Wikipedia articles, you don't always know what's best for the leads of Wikipedia articles, and I wish that you'd stop thinking that you do and stop trying to always get your way with the leads of Wikipedia articles, so much so that you almost watch the lead of every Wikipedia article you've altered. What we are supposed to do on Wikipedia is stay true to the sources, not stray from the sources to fit our personal opinions and present a topic (such as a sexual identity matter) in an inaccurate way. Nothing empty and/or erroneous about that. The sources give a significant amount of weight to "self-identifies as lesbian" or "lesbian-identified" for defining the term and concept "lesbian," which means that such language is not empty or erroneous to those sources; what they state is very clear as to why "self-identifies as lesbian" or "lesbian-identified" for defining the term and concept "lesbian" is not empty and/or erroneous. And that is the wording that I will continue to support, for reasons I've already made explicitly clear above, unless someone comes up with better wording. And, as stated before, if anyone one wants to know what we mean by "self-identifies," they can click on the link or read past the first paragraph. Readers know how to read past the first paragraph. In the meantime, I will go ahead and tweak Chrisrus's semicolon issue.

Siawase, I'm not sure what you mean by "I'm not really seeing the support you seem to see for the truncated, circular definition." My point is exactly that "self-identification [i]s one element of more nuanced and complex definitions." The sources indicate an "or" and "also." Again, refer to the lesbian health and identity source I keeping pointing to. Many sources on lesbian identity, such as the ones I pointed to on Google Books, make "self-identification" points similar to that source.

IdreamofJeanie, the value judgement argument is a good point and that perception is what I've objected to above concerning Bhny's initial arguments and wording proposal in this section. But the point of the sources is that a woman's sexual identification as lesbian does not always line up with her sexual orientation. The aforementioned lesbian health and identity source is one of the many sources that are very clear that the term lesbian refers to homosexual sexual orientation, sexual behavior and/or self-identification as lesbian (and, yes, Bhny, the Lesbian article is about the term and the concept, as it should be). In fact, and I've already noted this above, the aforementioned source is very clear that the term lesbian sometimes includes bisexual-identified women (other sources I pointed to on Google Books are also clear about that), which further shows how much more of a sexual identity "lesbian" is than it is a sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22: You conflated/confused the concept and the term with how you used it in the lead. The source (this is the source you're talking about, yes?) is talking about the term, but when you changed the lead to prioritize WP:REFERS you used the source to describe the concept. The source does NOT say "A lesbian is anyone who identifies as a lesbian" but that the TERM lesbian has been used to describe women who self-identify as lesbians. It's not the same thing. If we have to start with "A lesbian is" we should use sources that actually define that (the Lesbian Health source does not, it explicitly AVOIDS authoritatively defining it in a factual voice, so we cannot use it to authoritatively define the concept in Wikipedia voice either) and then make it clear we're talking about the term if we're going to use sources that discuss broader usage of the term. Siawase (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Siawase, would you care to rewrite the lead paragraph? It is becoming unreadable and could do with a fresh start. I know my attempts will be reverted by the WP:OWNER of the page. These, for example are unbelievable-"one is experiences primary or..." and "used as an adjective to characterize or associate nouns..." Bhny (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

How about "A lesbian is a female homosexual–a woman who experiences primary or exclusive romantic love with or sexual attraction to other females–or a woman who self-identifies as such." If it's just a matter of copyediting I don't see a reason to remove the concepts. Zad68 00:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Siawase, let's begin with the way you are distinguishing the term and the concept... Women who identify as lesbians and researchers who identify women as lesbians define what a lesbian is; by extension, they define what the concept of a lesbian is. It's not simply that the term lesbian refers to sexual orientation, sexual behavior and/or sexual identity. Women and researchers who use the term lesbian in those ways have made it so that the concept is about that. WP:REFERS is very clear about the use-mention distinction; it's not much of a distinction, really; just a change of a few words/grammar. If you want to use a different source, one that does not emphasize the word term, there are plenty to choose from on Google Books. But that aforementioned source is not used in the lead; it's used in the Sexuality and lesbian identity section of the article. Which change of mine to the lead are you referring to? The change to the lead with regard to WP:REFERS started with this edit by Bhny edit in December 2013; I followed up with this edit, which was an improvement, as noted in my initial post in the section immediately above this one. I avoid "refers to" for the first sentence of articles, and so does Bhny. The first paragraph would very likely still be the same as it was for years if Bhny hadn't shown up to this article to alter it to Bhny's preferred wording. When leads are changed to conform to the WP:REFERS essay, the source is not changed simply because the source is about defining the term. If you can come up with a non-"refers to" wording, then do, because Bhny and other editors (much more than myself) are not going to let "refers to" wording stand for the first sentence.

Bhny, all one needs to do is look at your talk page and edit history to see who thinks they WP:OWN articles; out of the two of us, I'm not the one constantly fighting to have the lead be my way. But since I object to your almighty prose, I'm WP:OWNing the article? What great logic. You've been told by various editors when your so-called improvements are not improvements and yet you still persist. After all, you WP:Edit war over leads, and revert at the drop of a hat to get your way, like you did here with me. The way of life, I guess. And Siawase is for WP:REFERS wording, if you haven't noticed.

Zad, your wording is a bit off because it is leaving the "a woman who experiences primary or exclusive romantic love with or sexual attraction to other females" portion to the female homosexual aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I will be adding self-identification to the second sentence, which is specifically about how the term is used. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, as seen here and here. And, for goodness sakes, like I noted during the fixes, the "is" in "is experiences" was obviously a typo that was meant to be "who." Choosing to remove easily fixable content instead of fixing it? I guess a person has to do what a person has to do to get their way. Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Further tweak here. Looks like these latest edits take care of the "self-identifies" dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

And added "sexual behavior" along with "sexual identity," of course. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Also noting on this talk page for documentation: I have added the other aspect of self-identification as lesbian to the lead paragraph that details identity, sexual identity and sexual behavior, as seen here and here (the second edit is a fix). Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I forgot to relink "homosexuality"; so re-linked. Flyer22 (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sexual orientation is profoundly personal, and only the person themselves (if they are alive) has the authority to self-identify as anything. This isn't as though this were an objective, observable trait like being tall. I am in agreement with Flyer22. We should follow the rules regarding Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as far as living individuals go, which is that they must self-identify with the label in question. Period. This is Wikipedia's official policy on the matter, and if you disagree with it, work to change the policy. Asarelah (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Asarelah, the matter in question is not a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) issue since we are not naming any specific living person in this regard (debating their sexual orientation or sexual identity) in the lead or lower in the article, but rather how the term/concept is used with regard to people in general, but I thank you for weighing in. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the previous 15 edits of this page 14 were by the same person. That's what I meant by (WP:OWNER). All the other editors have been driven away. Me too, I've stopped following this article. Bye. Bhny (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I seem to have overlooked your reply. I'll reply now: Bhny, then you clearly don't know what WP:OWN means (a policy that is clear about what WP:OWN is and isn't), just like you seemingly don't understand some other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; for example, WP:Dictionary, a policy you've tripped over more than once (as told by different editors). As for others being driven from this page by me as a result of this discussion, I'm certain that you are additionally wrong in that regard. I'm certain that this article is still on their WP:Watchlists. What this discussion having slowed means is that it has come to its natural end, as is clear by my "01:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)" commentary above, and as is the usual way of things on Wikipedia and in any forum. If editors were driven away from this discussion by me, then I am only part of the equation; this is because if they were driven away, it is a result of the bickering that has gone on in this discussion. It takes two to tango. But, yes, bye. It's not the last I've seen of you, however, since you like to control the leads of Wikipedia articles and since your WP:Watchlist has Wikipedia articles on it that I also watch. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Introduction lacks citations

Most of the introduction is completely uncited. Could somebody address this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎LukeMN (talk • contribs)

Hi Luke, it's actually pretty common for a lead not to have citations. Everything in the lead should be in the body, and what's in the body should have the citations. Zad68 18:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: LukeMN (talk · contribs), the reason that the WP:Lead (introduction) currently lacks citations, except for three, is because all of what is stated in the lead is supported lower in the article with citations. Per WP:CITELEAD, the lead does not necessarily need citations. If someone challenges a part of the lead, then, yeah, it's good to then go ahead and cite it. It is usually best to cite controversial matters, in the lead or otherwise, but I don't yet see that the lead of this article needs any more citations. It would be WP:Citation clutter, in my opinion.

On a side note: Remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Zad68 signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)