Talk:Human sexuality/Archive 2

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vandalism

Someone vandalized the beginning of the article. Seeing as I can't remove it, it has to be a hack. Please have someone come fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.85.143 (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2007‎

Focusing on reproduction for the lead sentence

I reverted Ideafarmcity's edit that focused on reproduction for the lead sentence. I reverted because human sexuality is not solely or even mainly about reproducing, as should be clear from simply looking at the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, the drive to reproduce is generally believed by researchers today to no longer be an innate quality in humans, but rather a learned quality among humans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ideafarmcity, you can WP:Edit war on this matter as much as you like...until you are WP:Blocked, but your text will not be staying, especially since there are no WP:Reliable sources to support it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ideafarmcity, this is my last time responding to you about this, especially since you are not engaging on the talk page. Your text is not supported by WP:Reliable sources. WP:Verifiability is policy. This is why I added sourced definitional material. There are no sources, absolutely zero, that define human sexuality as "behaviors and experiences that result directly from the human reproduction system. The term embraces copulation, marriage, and gender roles, as well as behaviors and experiences that do not involve pregnancy, childbirth, or the raising of children. The term is also used more narrowly to refer to erotic experiences."

So if you re-add that piece or anything similar to it, this matter will be going to a noticeboard. I do not have the time nor patience to play around on this topic. And by "play around," I mean entertain your edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, I also added "or the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings" with two reliable sources supporting it. I would have preferred to retain "is the capacity of humans to have erotic experiences and responses" for the lead sentence, since it is clearer and is not redundant by stating "sexuality is being sexual," but significantly fewer sources use that wording. The sources more often state "the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings," or they define human sexuality in some other broad way. If no one beats me to it, I will likely remove "the quality of being sexual" and simply stick with "or the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

None of the sources on human sexuality focus on sexual reproduction, except for naming it as an aspect; in fact, they go out of their way to make it clear that human sexuality is significantly broader than sexual reproduction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Section break

Sangdeboeuf, regarding this, see what I stated above. I stated, "I also added 'or the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings' with two reliable sources supporting it. I would have preferred to retain 'is the capacity of humans to have erotic experiences and responses' for the lead sentence, since it is clearer and is not redundant by stating 'sexuality is being sexual,' but significantly fewer sources use that wording. The sources more often state 'the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings,' or they define human sexuality in some other broad way. If no one beats me to it, I will likely remove 'the quality of being sexual' and simply stick with 'or the way people experience and express themselves as sexual beings'."

So I obviously agree with you removing the "the quality of being sexual" part. You asked "what is a sexual being?" The line after the initial sentence states, "This involves biological, erotic, physical, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors." It's supported by two reliable sources, and the sources are not limiting human sexuality simply to sexual acts. So I removed your "explain" tag. If you have a better idea for the first and/or second sentence with reliable sources, then I'm open to hearing it, but like this 2009 "Human Sexuality: Biological, Psychological, and Cultural Perspectives" source, from Taylor & Francis, pages 32–42, states, human sexuality is a broad term that lacks a precise definition. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Changed "as sexual beings" to "sexually." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course, right now we have the Human sexuality article stating "is the way people experience and express themselves sexually" and the Human sexual activity article stating "is the manner in which humans experience and express their sexuality." And there is some article overlap. There has been recent discussion about limiting the scope of the Human sexual activity article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Human sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Human sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Human estrus

I reverted an addition by Adams1peace, not only because there was WP:Editorializing (such as "there is now good scientific evidence") and WP:OR involved, but also because the argument that women have not lost estrus is a minority viewpoint. I made this clear at Talk:Estrous cycle#Human female sexual receptive behaviour in estrous (permalink here). This level of "human estrus" detail in this article was also WP:Undue weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any of the sources that Adams1peace included use the term estrus or are making a "women have not lost estrus" argument. The sources are talking about the menstrual cycle and ovulation. This is indeed similar to the discussion I had with others at Talk:Estrous cycle#Human female sexual receptive behaviour in estrous. Do read that discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The question is not about the cycle, but the phase called estrus, as defined elsewhere in Wikipedia: Estrus or oestrus refers to the phase when the female is sexually receptive ("in heat"). Under regulation by gonadotropic hormones, ovarian follicles mature and estrogen secretions exert their biggest influence. The female then exhibits sexually receptive behavior,[4] a situation that may be signaled by visible physiologic changes. Estrus is commonly seen in the mammalian species, including primates. It is thought that this increased sexual receptivity serves to function of helping the female obtain mates with superior genetic quality.[4] This phase is sometimes called estrum or oestrum. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrous_cycle

Scientific studies showing heightened sexual activity at ovulation, as cited below, have accumulated rapidly in recent years. These studies are no longer in a minority. The evidence needs to be presented in Wikipedia, and it belongs in the subject of human sexuality. As you indicate, it is still a debatable question. With this in mind, here is a possible alternative version.

=== Do humans have estrus? ===

There is now considerable scientific evidence that, as in other mammals, human females may demonstrate all of the characteristics of estrus: heightened sexual activity, attractiveness, and attraction at the time of ovulation during the menstrual cycle. However, the effects are not always evident because they may be over-ridden by other, non-biological social and cognitive factors. However, the effects are not always evident because they may be over-ridden by other, non-biological social and cognitive factors. . . . By controlling for other factors, the first definitive scientific observations of heightened sexual activity associated with ovulation were obtained in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s . . .Adams1peace (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If you are going to include content on estrus, then you are going to need sources that address that specifically, and not just about other things that may be related to estrus. You cannot make the leap from X is related to Y, Y is related to Z, therefore X is related to Z. GMG ^talk 09:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adams1peace, did you read Talk:Estrous cycle#Human female sexual receptive behaviour in estrous? Read it. Also see Talk:Estrous cycle#Addition of a section on the estrus cycle and sexual behaviour. Sources are clear that human females do not have estrus and that they have a menstrual cycle rather than an estrous cycle. Human females do not go "in heat." The Estrous cycle article is also clear that human females do not have estrous cycles; this is made clear in its "Differences from the menstrual cycle" section. Your sources also are not calling the cycle "estrous cycle." They are using the terms menstrual cycle and ovulation. The "heightened sexual activity at ovulation" aspect is something that should be covered in detail at the Menstrual cycle article and/or the Ovulation article, with only a brief summary here at this article. Also, per MOS:HEAD, we don't ask questions in our headings. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You have a good point, GMG. While it is true that studies showing heightened sexual activity at ovulation are no longer a minority, most studies over the years do not refer explicitly to human estrus. However, in recent years there are some that do: Two recent studies include "estrus" in their titles:"Human estrus: implications for relationship science" and Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by lap dancers: economic evidence for human estrus?"". Another article, which can be read online, The Unique Impact of Menstruation on the Female Voice: Implications for the Evolution of Menstrual Cycle Cues, begins by asserting that the question of human estrus is now being reevaluated in the light of recent findings.

Heightened sexual activity at ovulation is now abundantly documented in the scientific literature, and it is now being related by some scientists to the question of whether there is human estrus. However, this is not well-documented by Wikipedia. How should this be done? Adams1peace (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Adams1peace, per what I stated above, we should not state that human females have estrus in Wikipedia's voice. A few sources using the term estrus (with some likely using the term to simply mean "menstrual cycle" rather than the "in heat" definition you are going by) or questioning whether there is "economic evidence for human estrus?" doesn't trump WP:Due weight, which means giving the vast majority of our weight to what the literature generally states. And WP:Due weight, a policy we should be respecting, is for human females not having estrus and not having estrous cycles. As for how to include the question of whether or not human females have estrus, it's not something that belongs in this article. It belongs in the Estrous cycle article. Like I stated at Talk:Estrous cycle#Human female sexual receptive behaviour in estrous, "Content about women having estrus cycles should not be in [the Estrous cycle article] unless included from the evolutionary viewpoint that human females once had estrus, lost it, and that some researchers believe that human females still have it." That is the way to include the content you want to add, but it should be without your WP:Editorializing and WP:Synthesis. Or you will be reverted, or your content will be significantly downsized/tweaked. The text should be clear that the belief that human females have estrus is a minority viewpoint. And you should not use sources that are about the menstrual cycle and ovulation to build content about estrus in human females...unless sources specifically use the term estrus and are tying it to the text in the way you have added it. Otherwise, your text is WP:Synthesis. I'll go ahead and alert WP:Med to this discussion and see if they have anything to state on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: The discussion on this is now seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Estrus in humans, and estrous cycle vs. menstrual cycle. A permalink for it is here. As that discussion shows, the topic is now covered at the Menstrual cycle article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry all. I'm not able to thoroughly evaluate sources at the moment, but I'll try to check back in in a couple days. GMG ^talk 20:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed POV subsection on "evolution of neurobiological factors"

[My original first comment in this section is below this intro]

Hi, Seppi333, I wanted to ping you again because some input on the situation here would be very valuable. There are 3 issues involved. 1. Are Wunsch's ideas fringe, and by how much? 2. Does the RS policy suggest he should be removed? (Remember, according to Google Scholar, almost nobody cites him except himself.) 3. What do you think about the possible connection between the accounts Yohan Castel and JaKomensky, along with the IP editor I mention below, and between these editor(s) and Wunsch himself?

Flyer22 Reborn has not suggested bringing back this material, but did recently suggest pinging you.

Taking the time to read over this thread and comment at the bottom is much appreciated. Thank you. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

[Original opening comment:]

I removed the section on the evolution of neurobiology because examination makes clear that it promotes a POV - namely, that human sexual desires are largely learned rather than innate - that contradicts the scientific consensus found in Bailey et al 2016, LeVay 2017, Balthazart 2012, and others.

It was added all at once by a single IP editor: [1]

Its sources make this clear as they are cherry picked. Agmo 2007 argues that human sexual orienation is learned; this makes it out of step with scientific consensus. Nei et al 2008 and Zhang and Webb 2003 are about animals - original synthesis perhaps going on here. Wunsch 2014 and Wunsch 2017 argue similarly to Agmo, but are by a fringe researcher, as his relative lack of cites on Google Scholar makes clear. [2] Gagnon 2005 is a nearly unchanged reissuing of a book from the 1970s, arguing for a "social constructionist" perspective which posits, again, that sexuality is learned.

Incidentally, I have found that French Wikipedia pushes this POV heavily. Its articles on sexual orientation consistently argue that because pheromones and reflexes don't play much of a part among humans, sexual orientation is learned instead. I can't do much about this since I use Google Translate to view other language Wikipedias, but if anyone reading this knows French and wants to correct this, that would be a great help.

Information on evolution and/or neurobiology may be useful for this article, but this isn't the material we're looking for. Crossroads1 (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I had not noticed that section. Thanks for removing it! Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Some human sexual desires are learned. Or rather have developed due to, or been significantly impacted by, an incidental social factor or cultural influences. Sexual orientation, as we know, is not learned. Anyway, the section was problematic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Crossroads1, the Wunsch 2017 source says that "the data was collected from a review of the literature concerning the evolution of neurobiological factors of sexual behaviour in mammals." It talks about humans in addition to other mammals. It says "The aim of this article is to make a precise identiﬁcation of the factors involved in the evolution of human sexuality." So it is a source to use for this article. And sexual behavior is significantly impacted by culture and society. The source isn't focused on sexual orientation. It's focused on sexual behavior and what drives it. Heterosexual behavior, for example, is obviously not the same thing as being heterosexual. Homosexual behavior is obviously not the same thing as being homosexual. Humans are not driven by things such as mating season and estrus. As for Wunsch not having a lot of publications to his name, the same can be stated of various authors we use as a source on Wikipedia. What matters is if the source is reliable, due, and whether or not what the researcher is saying falls under WP:Fringe. I haven't look at the other sources yet. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Wunsch is not wrong that culture and learning have roles (in sexuality overall) and that pheromones and reflexes do not. He is however dead wrong when he concludes things like "sexuality develops in the early years of life via various activities in which the genital erogenous zones are stimulated" and that the "functional dynamic has evolved in favour of behaviour in which erogenous zones are stimulated. In humans, because of the highly developed cortex, this behaviour involving stimulation of the erogenous zones...appears to be heavily structured by cognition and, in particular, by culture." He argues that sexuality is primarily about learning based on genital stimulation. (If this were true, why don't more people have fetishes for their own hand?) He totally ignores the existence of innate tendencies, which have been shown to exist not only for sexual orientation but even to play a role in the existence of some paraphilias. He also talks as though humans evolved from rodents. This is a common biological fallacy; actually both humans and rodents evolved from a common ancestor.

I am confused by your comment about other obscure authors being used on Wikipedia. I would think using well respected authors is ideal. If we find refs pushing a fringe POV, such references should be replaced with ones that represent scientific consensus. This is true of Wunsch; note his article here (PDF download) [3] where he explicitly argues sexual orientation is learned.

On top of this, note this comparison of the old text here [4] with the description of this picture [5] uploaded by "Yohan Castel". The IP who wrote the material here is thus probably the same person as Yohan Castel. Note too how he says it is his "own work", even though it originates in Wunsch's work as shown in his 2017 paper on page e7. Perhaps they are also the same person? Along these lines, note also how this picture [6] by Yohan Castel is pretty much the same as the picture from page 7 of Wunsch's other paper I linked to above. For further evidence, note how especially these two articles on French Wikipedia [7] [8] make the same arguments as Wunsch, and are largely by Yohan Castel. I don't like it when people think Wikipedia is a convenient platform for expounding personal ideas.

At any rate, Wunsch is out of step with scientific consensus, and has a clear "it's all nurture" agenda, which casts all of his work into doubt. Why should I trust what he says about what I don't know when he is wrong about what I do? We can do better. Crossroads1 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You stated, "He is however dead wrong when he concludes things like 'sexuality develops in the early years of life via various activities in which the genital erogenous zones are stimulated' and that the 'functional dynamic has evolved in favour of behaviour in which erogenous zones are stimulated." He seems to be arguing the "learned activity that is performed in order to obtain sexual rewards" aspect that many researchers focus on. Seppi333 has talked about this with WP:MEDRS-compliant sources in relation to sexual addiction and can offer some insight into this discussion. So I just pinged Seppi333. I'll also email Seppi333 to weigh in since Seppi333 is often busy and hasn't been back on Wikipedia since the 14th.

You stated, "He argues that sexuality is primarily about learning based on genital stimulation. (If this were true, why don't more people have fetishes for their own hand?) He totally ignores the existence of innate tendencies, which have been shown to exist not only for sexual orientation but even to play a role in the existence of some paraphilias. He also talks as though humans evolved from rodents." I don't understand your "why don't more people have fetishes for their own hand?" question. When people masturbate, it's not about directing their sexual desires toward their own hand. It's about fantasizing about a person/situation. Sometimes it's just about the pleasure the genitals can bring and no sexual fantasy accompanies the matter. Boys typically learn to masturbate before girls. David Buss talks about researchers attributing this to the penis being significantly larger than the clitoris, males urinating through the penis, and boys being taught from childhood to touch their penises while girls are often taught that they should not touch their own genitalia. And why do boys and girls, and adults, keep masturbating? For the pleasure it brings. Well, except for the asexuals who state that they masturbate as a form of release, not for pleasure. People learn sexual behaviors, either on their own or from others. It's not innate in anyone to know what fellatio is; fellatio is usually discovered by being told about it. To those who thought to engage in fellatio all on their own? They are the outliers. Humans engage in copycat behavior; you know, the whole "monkey see, monkey do" thing. Primates, which humans are, are known to significantly engage in copycat behavior. Sex education is all about people being taught sexuality. Yes, human sexuality includes the topic of sexual orientations and other sexual desires. But learning or being taught sexuality is not the same thing as being taught to have a sexual orientation or sexual desire, although some sexual desires, such as sexual attraction to breasts or preferring blondes, are impacted by society and culture, which is why breasts are not considered a sexual matter in a number of cultures. And like I told you via email, I don't know of any scientist who says that attraction to a certain hair color is innate rather than socially/culturally influenced. Like I also told you via email, so many paraphilias can be traced back to childhood. Researchers know this via talking to/studying those with paraphilias. I pointed you to the current Causes section of the Paraphilia article. What Susan Nolen-Hoeksema states about masturbatory fantasies with regard to the stimulus reinforcing and broadening the paraphilic arousal is what a number of researchers state. A number of researchers "propose that paraphilias are conditioned early in life, during an experience that pairs the paraphilic stimulus with intense sexual arousal." I asked you, "If gendered clothes didn't exist, how would transvestic fetishism exist?" Yes, there is some investigation of biological causes or rather contributions with regard to paraphilias, as the Causes section of the Paraphilia article also shows (although that source should be updated to a WP:MEDRS-compliant source), especially since paraphilias are predominantly seen in males, but even most researchers who look at the biological possibility consider how it interacts with environment; it's not "biology vs. environment." It's "biology and environment," just like the Nature versus nurture article makes clear. And "learned" doesn't always mean "nurture." As for rodents, researchers are always comparing humans to rodents. Much of what we know about the human brain is based on the research of rodents or other animals.

You stated that you are "confused by [my] comment about other obscure authors being used on Wikipedia. [You] would think using well respected authors is ideal." What I mean is that WP:Reliable sources is not based on the WP:Notability of the author/how prolific the author is. Look at the Sexual addiction article or the Human brain article and see how many authors can be called notable in terms of WP:Notability. How many can be called prolific? Of course, we should not put forth fringe ideas. This is why I stated "and whether or not what the researcher is saying falls under WP:Fringe." We can use the Wunsch 2017 source to talk about things that a number of researchers agree on without putting forth fringe ideas. But even WP:Fringe is clear that we can talk about fringe ideas on Wikipedia as long as they are given appropriate, rather than inappropriate, weight. I'm not stating that we should use the the Wunsch 2017 source. I just wanted to note that the source says that "the data was collected from a review of the literature concerning the evolution of neurobiological factors of sexual behaviour in mammals." Literature reviews or reports on the literature are things Wikipedia wants, as is clear by WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I just wanted to note that the source "talks about humans in addition to other mammals" and that it says "The aim of this article is to make a precise identiﬁcation of the factors involved in the evolution of human sexuality." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you say here about sexuality. I look forward to Seppi333's input. By no means do I think "it's all nature/innate." A researcher we use here doesn't need to be prolific, but if their academic peers are not citing them, [9] why should we? I just don't see any good reason to use Wunsch when (1) he pushes an "it's all nurture/learning" agenda even about sexual orientation which we know is dead wrong, (2) he is an obscure researcher with little prestige, (3) there are much better sources out there, and (4) there may be a conflict of interest. Like I said before, "Why should I trust what he says about what I don't know when he is wrong about what I do [know]?" His fringe-ness taints any supposed literature review he does; it is very probable that he cherry picks. Again, not denying that specific sexual behaviors are learned, along with it playing a role in sexual desires/tastes, but it is not only learning as he says, nor is it true that the only possible innate factors are pheromone-related. Crossroads1 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. Wikipedia doesn't go by the "their academic peers are not citing them" thing, though, except for when it comes to WP:ACADEMIC. There are so many academic reliable sources on Wikipedia consisting of little known authors or authors who aren't being cited by others (except for, to our knowledge, on Wikipedia). We can and should look over other sources on this matter, preferably non-primary sources and see what they state and what, if anything that they state, lines up with what Wunsch has stated. Quickly looking on regular Google, I came across this "Introduction to Psychology. Module 12: Emotion and Motivation. Sexual Behavior" source from lumenlearning.com. It says, "Much of what we know about the physiological mechanisms that underlie sexual behavior and motivation comes from animal research." So it touches on what I stated about rodents. It also says, "Some researchers believe that sexual behavior is determined by genetics; however, others assert that it is largely molded by the environment." But I don't know of any modern-day researchers who believe that sexual behavior is determined solely by genetics. Our sexual orientations are desires, but they aren't actions. And people with paraphilias can obviously choose whether or not to act on their paraphilia. But there are mental impairment issues that have also been looked at. I'm not suggesting that we use the "Introduction to Psychology" source; I'm just pointing to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP states, "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes." See also WP:UBO and also WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD. The reputation of a source seems important based on these. It seems to me that any case where we cite somebody that is not cited much in academia, it would be better to replace that with a reputable source. And it is crucial to do so, as you know, if it is supporting a fringe POV. I am unsure what you have in mind for this article. I think I have shown that bringing back "Yohan Castel's" material isn't good. I am not inclined at this time to research and write up new material on neurobiology myself, and the article seems fine without it. If you want to dive into it, a useful springboard may be [10] which I briefly mentioned above as "Balthazart 2012." Crossroads1 (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this, where does Wunsch explicitly argue that sexual orientation is learned? The source begins by noting that its focus is on sexual behavior rather than sexuality. And although it talks about "heterosexual reproductive behavior," that's not the same thing as being heterosexual since plenty of gay or bisexual men have engaged in heterosexual reproductive behavior. And, in general, researchers are clear that they don't know the sexual orientation of non-human animals, if the animals can be said to have one anyway. With regard to non-human animals, the terms "heterosexual," "homosexual" and "bisexual" refer to the behavior of non-humans animals (usually anyway) rather than sexual orientation.

There is the following text from the source: "Another possible refutation apparently would be the existence of an innate sexual orientation, which is suggested mainly by positron emission tomography scan studies. When exposed to pheromones, the homosexual male brain and heterosexual female brain showed the same pattern of activation, different from the heterosexual male pattern, suggesting that homosexual men have an anatomical and functional 'female' diencephalic region (LeVay, 1991; Savic & al., 2005; Berglund & al., 2006 ; but see Ciumas 2009)."

Do you mean that? He also states, "It seems, in Man, that innate heterosexual reproductive behavior no longer exists; however, due to the specific relations between reinforcement processes and erogenous zones, a new behavior has appeared, the goal of which would be bodily stimulation." But it's focused on sexual behavior.

Yes, the reputation of a source is important. But Wunsch is without a bad reputation. And it's still the case that WP:Reliable sources is not based on the WP:Notability of the author/how prolific the author is. Following up on the "one can confirm" aspect, WP:SCHOLARSHIP says, "A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context." WP:UBO talks about "how accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation." But notice that it says "provides evidence" and that it also speaks of "widespread doubts about reliability weigh[ing] against [a source]." It's speaking of how a source may seem more reliable; it's not saying the source is unreliable if its use is not widespread and consistent. It says, "The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence." What widespread doubts are there regarding the reliability of Wunsch? WP:UBO also states that, "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them." Wunsch addresses things that reflect established views in the literature. WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD is a supplement page. And editors (including myself) have discussed on Wikipedia about whether or not supplement pages can really be distinguished from essays. It's well-established on Wikipedia that primary sources are not preferred over secondary sources and should be used with care/caution, especially for academic topics. If we went by the view that "any case where we cite somebody that is not cited much in academia, it would be better to replace that with a reputable source," many of our Wikipedia articles would be lacking even more than many already are. Most editors who choose a source published by Springer Publishing, for example, don't consider how much the author or source is cited in academia. They consider if the source passes WP:Reliable sources.

As for what I have planned for the article? Nothing at this point in time. I'm not stating that we should use the Wunsch source. And I clearly supported you removing the material; this is because if we are to include "evolution of neurobiological factors" material, it should be better presented. But do I think we could use the Wunsch source without doing so being problematic? Yes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(Emphasis added when quoting Wunsch.) The title of Wunsch's 2010 paper is "Evolution from mammals' heterosexual reproductive behavior to human erotic bisexuality". He talks about "an acquired "erotic behavior" involving behavioral sequences of stimulation of the most erogenous body zones by a partner – no matter his sex." And very clearly at the end: "In conclusion, in the absence of cultural values stigmatizing particular sexual behaviors (i.e., homophobia), it seems that the innate tendency to search for erogenous zones’ stimulations by partners, as seen in the Bonobos, leads to the learning of a sexuality that would in most cases be bisexual and diversified (Figure 5)." He is obviously arguing humans are naturally bisexual and that other orientations are learned. (He also wrongly stated that bonobos are our closest relatives - actually it is them and chimpanzees together.) I could argue all day why he is wrong, but I'll hold back to save time. You say "Wunsch is without a bad reputation." He is without a good reputation, which is itself a bad reputation. I do hope that Seppi333 is able to weigh in on this discussion, both on the neurobiology and the RS-policy aspects, I think it would clarify a lot. Crossroads1 (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the reputation aspect, I'd just be repeating myself again. But I will state that that I disagree that "without a good reputation [...] is itself a bad reputation." Instead of discussing some more, I think we should wait until Seppi333 weighs in; he very likely will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

More findings in this case. The account JaKomensky tried to add similar material to sexual intercourse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sexual_intercourse/Archive_9#Neurobiological_material

JaKomensky and Yohan Castel must be the same person. Their pattern of edits, the info they add, are the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Yohan_Castel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JaKomensky

They are obsessed with adding content about neurobiology of animals and how this evolved in humans, etc. They promote the fringe papers of Serge Wunsch, along with cherry picked sources and super old ethnographies to push their all nurture agenda. Like I said before, Castel/Komensky almost certainly has *ahem* a very close association with Wunsch, because their arguments are again the same and Castel claims Wunsch's pictures as his own on Commons.

I found that at French Wikipedia, this guy (as Yohan Castel) has run wild. (Use Google Translate to read.) Their article on sexual orientation says that it is learned:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientation_sexuelle

He created several superfluous articles that are obvious OR:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comportement_érotique

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comportement_de_reproduction

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Préférence_sexuelle

And he spammed the same fringe material on neurobiology across many other articles; here is just one example:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_sexuelle#Origine_neurobiologique_des_positions_sexuelles

I cannot stand blatant self-promotion, fringe theory pushing, and sockpuppetry. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Sorry for the delay in responding. I'd forgotten to follow-up after receiving the first notice due to things going on off-wiki. Based upon https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_sexuality&type=revision&diff=766706802&oldid=765648895 and what I've seen in this image, I wouldn't restore that content. In any event, I'll look into Wunsch's papers within the next day or two to see what he says as well as look into those editors when I get around to looking into this more. I will make a few quick points now though.

Rewarding stimuli induce both associative learning (i.e., operant/classical conditioning) and motor learning (think: learning how to ride a bike) and erogenous zone stimulation is an intrinsic reward (i.e., it's rewarding due to being inherently pleasurable as opposed to a conditioned/learned association). Most people use the term "learning" in the sense of declarative learning (think: learning a fact). I don't see declarative learning/memory as having much at all to do with sexual intercourse; it would be involved to some extent in sexuality. Motor learning (which facilitates reward acquisition) and associative learning (which modifies behavior) are definitely involved in sexual intercourse.

Will comment on sexual desire later. Need to log off for now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting; and thanks so much for the picture comments as well. Looking forward to the rest. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Seppi333, thanks for commenting. You said that you "don't see declarative learning/memory as having much at all to do with sexual intercourse." But if we are speaking of declarative learning with regard to sex education or learning sexual acts by watching pornography (as many young people these days do), then I do see declarative learning playing a significant role. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as the basic mechanics go (i.e., what goes where and how to do the deed), I don’t think any prior knowledge is really necessary; but, I see your point.

Anyway, regarding sexual desire - that’s really just incentive salience. Generally speaking, pretty much every form of desire is “learned” since a person can’t really know that they want/desire something until they’ve had some sort of positive experience (e.g., pleasure, enjoyment, etc.) either from it or a closely related stimulus. If you’ve never tried something before (e.g., a food), you won’t know if you’ll like it and want it in the future (usually, reward predictions are generalized from similar types of rewarding stimuli one has experienced though). The technical term for how your brain thinks you’ll like something and how much you actually do when you experience it (either for the first time or again) is “reward prediction error”, which leads to updating future expectations of reward from the same experience; that’s a form of learning I’d be hard pressed to classify since it involves changes to a cognitive process. Anyway, if you can link me to the papers you’d like me to look at, I should have time within the next 2 days. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Seppi333, it appears we disagree on these points then...since humans are not driven by things such as estrus or the mating season and kids often find out about sex via being told about it or learning about it without actually experiencing it. This is one reason we know that a child who is sexual with another child in a way that is child-on-child sexual abuse (as distinguished from playing doctor) is due to that child having been sexually abused or having learned of one or more sexual acts via the media or having witnessed one or more sexual acts. And many people have sexual desires for things without having had some sort of positive experience from it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I get that people find a stimulus rewarding and thus learn to seek more of it. But some stimuli are inherently more rewarding. For instance, a heterosexual male inherently feels far more reward when fantasizing about or engaging in sexual activity with a woman than a man. A person naturally finds edible food tasty and manure not. So I think the issue is that not all "wants" are learned - people are not blank slates. What makes people find some things rewarding and others not right from the start? -Crossroads- (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick comment to point out some corroborating evidence about the connection between Wunsch and the editor(s) here. Wunsch is located at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in Paris, France. The IP who added the material in this article is from Paris, France. This on top of the fact that we know that Yohan Castel is French and interested in the same things as Wunsch [11] as well as the fact that Wunsch, Yohan Castel, JaKomensky, and the IP all make the same arguments using the same sources and using the same pictures. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn and Crossroads1: I'm not sure if I'd actually classify this as a learning mechanism, but obviously pre-pubescent children don't become sexually aroused; that happens during puberty when plasma androgen concentrations increase in both sexes, which is one of several molecules that facilitate sexual arousal in the reward system. That said, it's absolutely true that an innate desire for all primary rewards is biologically determined since animals have evolved to seek those out; however, that doesn't mean that a person knows the particular primary rewarding stimuli they like beforehand (and therefore prefer over other primary rewards of the same type - i.e., food, drink, sex partners/acts). It simply means that they have predetermined wants for a general class/type of stimuli (it may help to read Reward_system#Wanting to understand the distinction between "wanting" and "liking" in this context, but I think it's also worth mentioning that the elicitation of pleasure is literally what defines whether or not a stimulus is an intrinsic reward vs not rewarding in the absence of conditioning; in general, experiencing pleasure from exposure to a stimulus updates the value of "wanting" for that stimulus, but there are some circumstances where wanting and liking dissociate - that's covered in the section I linked). To illustrate what I mean by that, consider for a moment the only other primary rewards besides those related to mating: food and water/fluids; obviously, hunger and thirst are the motivational states that are associated with those stimuli. In the absence of a craving for something which one likes (craving is a perfect example of a "learned want"), those states simply represent wants for those general classes of stimuli. So, when I said pretty much every form of desire is “learned”, I did not mean to suggest that people are blank slates that have 0 preconception of reward at birth; what I meant was that all desire for specific rewarding stimuli (e.g., wanting a particular food, craving a drug, desiring a particular person, wanting to engage in a specific activity, etc.) is learned after birth. In the context of sexual activity, a person can't want to have sex with someone without the value of the perceived reward being updated somehow. That typically doesn't occur by having sex with that person; it happens by observing desirable characteristics (e.g., attractive appearance, well-adjusted personality, and other traits that one finds innately desirable) in that person. As described in [12], beauty is a pleasant sensory stimulus. That's one way sexual reward (specifically, the "wanting" component) is updated/"learned" without having sex with a person. If the distinction between "general wants" and "specific wants" isn't clear, just think of the general form as a desire to satisfy a particular biological need (a "homeostatic reward" as that ref I liked calls it) as opposed to a desire to acquire/consume/experience a specific stimulus. Reading subsections 1, 2, and 3 under the heading "D. What Makes Rewards Rewarding?" in [13] might help clear things up if there's still some confusion about this.

Since I know some of the discussion about sexual desire pertains more to why some people prefer certain sexual activities over others, that's probably worth addressing: a lot of that is genetically and epigenetically determined. The amount of reward (specifically, pleasure) that one derives from any given rewarding stimulus is biologically determined, but some form of initial exposure to those stimuli (e.g., viewing a sexual act, engaging in that act, or a related form of sensory exposure to a sexual act) – or sufficiently similar stimuli to permit stimulus generalization – is necessary before a person can begin "wanting" one more than another. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This is one reason we know that a child who is sexual with another child in a way that is child-on-child sexual abuse (as distinguished from playing doctor) is due to that child having been sexually abused or having learned of one or more sexual acts via the media or having witnessed one or more sexual acts. Simply knowing about a sexual act wouldn't cause a child to engage in a particular behavior. Any behavior a person elicits when they're not actively exerting cognitive control over their behavior is guided by reward acquisition and the avoidance of aversives. So basically, that child would have to find sexually aggressive/assaultive acts rewarding in order to actually do it. "Reward" is more than just pleasure and want, it functions as a "go" signal for behavior in general via motivational salience.

And many people have sexual desires for things without having had some sort of positive experience from it. As I explained above, one doesn't need to physically experience a particular sex-related stimulus in order to prefer it over others (i.e., want it more than related stimuli), but some form of sensory exposure to it or a sufficiently similar stimulus is necessary for that to happen. There's a lot more to how changes in incentive salience for specific stimuli occur, but it's very abstract and I'd prefer not to go into it here (see reward cross-sensitization and Pavlovian-instrumental transfer if you're curious). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Seppi333, hopefully without making anyone too uncomfortable talking about child sexuality, I want to state that there are a lot of misconceptions about it (and, yes, I know that the Child sexuality article currently needs fixing up). Regardless of whatever sexual arousal aspect there is, we know that prepubescent children can be sexually stimulated and have orgasms. Prepubescent boys can have a dry orgasm, as mentioned by this 2012 "Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity" source (from Cengage Learning) and this 2013 "What Every Mental Health Professional Needs to Know About Sex" source (from Springer Publishing Company). So there is a rewards system there. As noted by the latter source, prepubescent boys commonly learn to masturbate on their own. In the case of child-on-child sexual abuse, the prepubescent child who has initiated the sexual contact is seeking sexual stimulation. It's not about the prepubescent child getting pleasure from sexually aggressive/assaultive acts; these children do not consider what they are doing to be sexually aggressive/assaultive. They don't even understand those concepts. Like the lead of the Child-on-child sexual abuse article (supported by this source) currently states, "While [child-on-child sexual abuse] includes when one of the children uses physical force, threats, trickery or emotional manipulation to elicit cooperation, it also can include non-coercive situations where the initiator proposes or starts a sexual act that the victim does not understand the nature of and simply goes along with, not comprehending its implications or what the consequences might be." The coercive acts tend to be committed more so by adolescents, who have more of a sense of, or know, that what they are doing is wrong. And even when young children use threats, trickery or emotional manipulation to elicit cooperation, it's usually not about the child feeling a reward by way of power. The "reward from power" aspect is seen significantly more so in adolescents and adults. I wasn't saying that simply knowing about a sexual act would cause a child to engage in a particular behavior. I, like the sources on child-on-child sexual abuse state, was saying that young children (with the exception of masturbation) are incapable of knowing about specific sex acts without an external source.

Anyway, I'm not saying that if children were never told about sex, they'd never figure it out on their own after puberty has set in. I mean, again, boys commonly learn to masturbate at a young age. But I am saying that if knowing how to perform a certain sex act were innate in humans, people (both children and teenagers) wouldn't need to be informed on the matter. Sex education is not simply telling people to use condoms and birth control, after all. As for a preference for certain sex acts, I don't think that has much to do with innateness. Like I noted above, I don't think that anyone is biologically predisposed to engage in fellatio. Now, if we are speaking of innateness with regard to how everyone (even identical twins) is different, and this is due to both biology and the environment interacting with each other, I agree. But I don't believe that a paraphilia such as urolagnia is due to an innate inclination. I think it can be traced back to the person's childhood. What causes paraphilias is still up for debate, and some paraphilias, such as pedophilia, do seem to have a biological basis. But, as seen in the Causes section of the Paraphilia article, "behavioral explanations propose that paraphilias are conditioned early in life, during an experience that pairs the paraphilic stimulus with intense sexual arousal. Susan Nolen-Hoeksema suggests that, once established, masturbatory fantasies about the stimulus reinforce and broaden the paraphilic arousal."

I agree that people need to try some things to know that they like or want it, but they can also like or what something without having tried it. Many people know that they are heterosexual or gay/lesbian without needing to have sex with anyone. Many teenagers come out as gay or lesbian before having sex with anyone. And a lot of people have stated that they knew their sexual orientation as a child, before they were a teenager. As mentioned above, it's also known that breasts are not erotic in some cultures. So this tells us that sexual attraction to breasts is culturally influenced in some cases. But I understand your point that "one doesn't need to physically experience a particular sex-related stimulus in order to prefer it over others (i.e., want it more than related stimuli), but some form of sensory exposure to it or a sufficiently similar stimulus is necessary for that to happen."

All that stated, whether we fully agree, somewhat agree, or disagree, I always appreciate your views on matters, and I appreciate discussing this with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

What causes paraphilias is still up for debate, and some paraphilias, such as pedophilia, do seem to have a biological basis. But, as seen in the Causes section of the Paraphilia article, "behavioral explanations propose that paraphilias are conditioned early in life, during an experience that pairs the paraphilic stimulus with intense sexual arousal. Susan Nolen-Hoeksema suggests that, once established, masturbatory fantasies about the stimulus reinforce and broaden the paraphilic arousal." That's not only plausible, it's almost certainly true. Conditioned rewards such as that are called extrinsic rewards and acquiring them (e.g., money) has been demonstrated experimentally in some cases to induce pleasure. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Seppi333, yes, agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

My advice is to create a sockpuppet investigation and have a checkuser look into this. If they’re editing on the same IP, they’ll likely be blocked. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, will be doing so soon. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Okay, so I was hoping for more comment on the accuracy of the added content/Wunsch's ideas overall. Two papers he has in English are here: [14] and [15].

In the first one, his conclusions are: (1) the dynamics of sexual behaviour has significantly evolved from the anthropoid primates; (2) the functional dynamic of heterosexual copulation is very probably disorganized; (3) the behavioural dynamics that emerge with the hominidae — from factors that still exist in heterosexual copulation — would seem to be based on a quest for erotic reward, by stimulation of the erogenous zones; and (4) in humans, due to the extensive cognitive development, sexuality is structured by cultural representations. And: In the Hominidae, in which all these changes and evolutionary features are brought together, the functional dynamic of sexual behaviour has been significantly altered. The only system that remains wholly functional is the system of reward associated with the erogenous zones. For these reasons,the neurobiological factors that have changed shift the orientation of sexual activity away from heterosexual copulation and towards erotic stimulation of the most erogenous areas of the body. Functionally, it appears that heterosexual copulation has become ‘‘disorganized’’ and that the functional dynamic has evolved in favour of behaviour in which erogenous zones are stimulated.

In the second one, his conclusions are quite radical. He states: in Man, the behavior that leads to reproduction may be conceived not as an innate “reproductive behavior,” but as an acquired “erotic behavior” involving behavioral sequences of stimulation of the most erogenous body zones by a partner—no matter his sex. And: In conclusion, in the absence of cultural values stigmatizing particular sexual behaviors (i.e., homophobia), it seems that the innate tendency to search for erogenous zones’ stimulations by partners, as seen in the Bonobos, leads to the learning of a sexuality that would in most cases be bisexual and diversified.

Looking at all this stuff together, he basically seems to argue that while in animals sexuality is based on reflexes and pheromones, in hominids, it is mostly about seeking stimulation of the erogenous zones. Because of that, human sexual attractions largely come from individual and social learning.

Does this seem like a fair assessment? Is his division of "reproductive behavior" for lower animals and "erotic behavior" for hominids accurate or misleading? Has he really disproved the widely thought innateness (mostly) of sexual orientation in favor of learned "sexual preferences", as in this French paper? [16] While he is obviously not wrong about everything, I do get heavy fringe/crackpot vibes from his work (and also from the way someone is obsessed with promoting it on Wikipedia when he is largely uncited) - do you at all agree?

Thanks so much for looking into this. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

In conclusion, in the absence of cultural values stigmatizing particular sexual behaviors (i.e., homophobia), it seems that the innate tendency to search for erogenous zones’ stimulations by partners, as seen in the Bonobos, leads to the learning of a sexuality that would in most cases be bisexual and diversified I've read a lot of dumb shit in academic papers before, but this has to be in the top 5. Some of the stuff he says is consistent with other sources – like (3) the behavioural dynamics that emerge with the hominidae — from factors that still exist in heterosexual copulation — would seem to be based on a quest for erotic reward, by stimulation of the erogenous zones;, but that's also true for most animals – other assertions are pretty

Facepalm. The reflex stuff is mostly nonsense since the act of engaging in intercourse isn't reflexive; it's just the positioning of the female during intercourse that is. The assertions about pheromones and hormonal fluctuations (e.g., animals that go into heat) is true for some animals but not others. He's basically arguing that all non-hominids engage in sexual intercourse due to homeostatic reward as opposed to pleasure while hominids really only engage in intercourse for pleasure; I don't even need to read the paper to know there's no evidence to support the assertion about non-hominids. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Excerpts from another source – Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

To ensure gene propagation, the primary rewards mediate the survival of the individual gene carrier and her reproduction. These rewards are foods and liquids that contain the substances necessary for individual survival, and the activities necessary to mate, produce offspring, and care for the offspring. They are attractive and the main means to achieve evolutionary fitness in all animals and humans. Primary food and liquid rewards serve to correct homeostatic imbalances. They are the basis for Hull's drive reduction theory (242) that, however, would not apply to rewards that are not defined by homeostasis. Sexual behavior follows hormonal imbalances, at least in men, but is also strongly based on pleasure. To acquire and follow these primary alimentary and mating rewards is the main reason why the brain's reward system has evolved in the first place. Note that “primary” reward does not refer to the distinction between unconditioned versus conditioned reward; indeed, most primary rewards are learned and thus conditioned (foods are primary rewards that are typically learnt). ...
[The paragraph above describes how reproduction is a primary/homeostatic reward in all animals and the paragraph below asserts that humans probably wouldn't engage in sexual activity if it weren't pleasurable; these assertions are consistent with what Wunsch is arguing; however...]
Pleasure is not only one of the three main reward functions but also provides a definition of reward. As homeostasis explains the functions of only a limited number of rewards, the prevailing reason why particular stimuli, objects, events, situations, and activities are rewarding may be pleasure. This applies first of all to sex (who would engage in the ridiculous gymnastics of reproductive activity if it were not for the pleasure) and to the primary homeostatic rewards of food and liquid, and extends to money, taste, beauty, social encounters and nonmaterial, internally set, and intrinsic rewards. ...
[The paragraphs below, particularly the bolded+underlined statement, contradicts it. Other research cited in the reward system article also covers pleasure induced by primary rewards in animals, so I don't think his assertions are consistent with the literature I've read.]
Once we have experienced the pleasure from a reward, we may form a desire to obtain it again. When I am thirsty or hungry and know that water or food helps, I desire them. Different from such specific desire, there are also desires for imagined or even impossible rewards, such as flying to Mars, in which cases desires become wishes (514). Desire requires a prediction, or at least a representation, of reward and constitutes an active process that is intentional [in being about something (529)]. Desire makes behavior purposeful and directs it towards identifiable goals. Thus desire is the emotion that helps to actively direct behavior towards known rewards, whereas pleasure is the passive experience that derives from a received or anticipated reward. Desire has multiple relations to pleasure; it may be pleasant in itself (I feel a pleasant desire), and it may lead to pleasure (I desire to obtain a pleasant object). Thus pleasure and desire have distinctive characteristics but are closely intertwined. They constitute the most important positive emotions induced by rewards. They prioritize our conscious processing and thus constitute important components of behavioral control. These emotions are also called liking (for pleasure) and wanting (for desire) in addiction research (471) and strongly support the learning and approach generating functions of reward.
Despite their immense power in reward function, pleasure and desire are very difficult to assess in an objectively measurable manner, which is an even greater problem for scientific investigations on animals, despite attempts to anthropomorphize (44). We do not know exactly what other humans feel and desire, and we know even less what animals feel. We can infer pleasure from behavioral responses that are associated with verbal reports about pleasure in humans. We could measure blood pressure, heart rate, skin resistance, or pupil diameter as manifestations of pleasure or desire, but they occur with many different emotions and thus are unspecific. Some of the stimuli and events that are pleasurable in humans may not even evoke pleasure in animals but act instead through innate mechanisms. We simply do not know. Nevertheless, the invention of pleasure and desire by evolution had the huge advantage of allowing a large number of stimuli, objects, events, situations, and activities to be attractive. This mechanism importantly supports the primary reward functions in obtaining essential substances and mating partners.
— https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4491543/

Just to be clear, I think Wunsch's arguments in those papers are WP:FRINGE. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I just want to note that various reliable sources state that humans engage in sexual activity primarily or solely for pleasure, or for pleasure and reproduction. From what I know of enough sources, "pleasure" also includes bonding. If there are any other reasons cited for humans engaging in sexual activity, we can list those here. But I think that "pleasure" and "reproduction" broadly cover it (except for asexuals who say they only masturbate as a form of release or engage in sexual activity to please a non-asexual romantic partner). Even when people engage in sexual activity because they are depressed, they are usually seeking pleasure to help with their depression. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I consider of some of Wunsch's views to be wrong and that some lean in the fringe direction. I'm not going to be specific because aspects are already addressed above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Seppi333, thanks so much for your replies. They really clarified a lot for me. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

A sock case at SPI for Yohan Castel has now been opened: link -Crossroads- (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on one last thing in this thread since I think it's worth pointing out. Nature vs nurture or genetics vs the environment used to be considered a duality, but the discovery/study of epigenetics made that line of thinking archaic. The environment can affect the expression and transcription of genes by altering epigenetic marks in humans and other animals and those alterations to the epigenome are heritable; i.e., they can be passed on to offspring. Moreover, the phenotypes - be it behavioral or physical - that those epigenetic alterations produce in the parent are also observable in the offspring. The inheritance of this type of gene-environment interaction is called transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, and research suggests that it is the mechanism behind the prevalent pathologies that exist in the children of holocaust survivors in addition to the distinct physiological or behavioral characteristics (relative to the children of unaffected parents) that are present in the children of people who survive famines or endure other highly stressful or traumatic life experiences. A very specific example of this in rats and the precise mechanisms involved is described here: Addiction#cite_note-54. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Seppi333, yes, Crossroads1 and I have talked about nature and nurture, rather than nature vs. nurture (both on Wikipedia and via email). This is why, with my "23:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)" post above, I stated, "Now, if we are speaking of innateness with regard to how everyone (even identical twins) is different, and this is due to both biology and the environment interacting with each other, I agree." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary by Crossroads

The SPI case was rejected because none of the accounts have edited for the last 2.5 years. Nonetheless, because the pattern is to come back after a dormancy period, and the problems with the information he adds are generally not immediately obvious, I am summarizing here so any readers know what serves as a signature that this person has returned. Pinging Seppi333 to make sure you see this too, as his preferred subject is your area of expertise.

The individual:

-Adds references to work of Serge Wunsch.

-Adds diagrams uploaded to Commons by Yohan Castel.

-Really likes talking about the evolution of neurobiology.

-Contrasts animal with human sexuality.

-Usually brings up rodents, lordosis, and pheromones.

-Has apparently used the accounts Yohan Castel, Castel Yohan, and JaKomensky, as well as an IP from France.

-May appear with a new account or IP; the behavioral tells listed above will give him away.

If anyone reading this runs into material added by this person, per the discussion that took place in this section, it should probably be removed. If the person seems to have come back, it would be helpful to post on this talk page so the same people who saw this discussion will know. Reopening the SPI case may also be a good idea in that situation.

Hope this is helpful. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC) minor change because of additional info added below -Crossroads- (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

For ease of study, here are the relevant details from the SPI case:

These accounts are all obsessed with adding very similar, poorly sourced, synthesized material on neurobiology to sex articles. [17][18][19][20][21] This material discusses the same things - rodents, lordosis, pheromones, then evolution into hominids, rewards, cognition, culture. These accounts use the same sources, especially promoting the work and even doctoral thesis [22][23] of Serge Wunsch, an obscure researcher who gets almost no cites other than from himself [24] and has zero publications on PubMed. [25] The accounts also use the same pictures, uploaded to Commons by Yohan Castel. [26] The many problems with the material added by these accounts are discussed here: [27][28][29] Yohan Castel faced criticism and pushback from other editors for his material; [30][31] when JaKomensky appeared, one of those editors suspected him of not being new, but JaKomensky did not admit any previous account. [32] It seems clear that the name changing is an attempt to evade scrutiny and to make it appear that there is greater support for certain ideas. Yohan Castel has been adding the same bad material, and more, extensively to French Wikipedia, including the very fringe idea that sexual orientation is learned, [33] and has been active there up until last year. [34] Additionally, some of Yohan Castel's pictures appear to be copyvios of Wunsch's work (for just one example, compare [35] with p. 135-136 of [36]) and he has committed copyvios 3 times before. [37]

And the recent in-depth discussion of the problems with the material added by these accounts can be found here:

1st discussion (above on this page, and listed in the SPI quote)

2nd discussion

3rd discussion

-Crossroads- (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Also noting that this topic had been brought in August to the fringe theory noticeboard, and an uninvolved editor there agreed on the basis of the first two discussions about this material that Wunsch was considered fringe and that the points above could help detect future sock puppets. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Issue concering genetic predisposition of attraction

The problem with this is that the policy on fringe is intended to cover that which isn't supported by at least some peer-reviewed published research. Here, what we have is a minority view that is supported by peer-reviewed research which was published in a reputable journal and reported on by the mainstream media. The fact that it is a single study doesn't make it fringe- it makes it a minority viewpoint thus far. This is in line with WP:NPOV . To attempt to say otherwise is likely borne out of inappropriate political motivation, given the subject matter. Also, attribution is appropriate because it is not "mainstream consensus" - there is no mainstream consensus on human sexuality in terms of psychology, rather there are several broad psychological theories pertaining to human sexuality. (i.e. Freudian theory, Gessalt Theory, etc.) These theroies tend not to agree on certain points, and the cause of homosexuality is a major point of disagreement. Those interested may want to study this in more detail before editing. I am therefore reverting for these reasons. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Nobody mentioned fringe. The issue is that you are putting WP:UNDUE emphasis on a single primary source and using it to argue against WP:SECONDARY sources. Also, the content you are adding is being misleadingly presented. The key word is single - the one study which all of those news sources are talking about found there was not one gay gene, but hundreds or thousands of genes that influence sexual behavior, 5 of them having a relatively strong effect. Altogether, genetics accounts for somewhere between 8 and 25% of individual differences in this regard, according to this study. [38] -Crossroads- (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Material on Freud's views

The material on Freud's views about the origins of homosexuality in the article is garbled and inaccurate, and I would suggest that it be removed. That would include all of the following text: "Freud wrote that all human beings as capable of becoming either heterosexual or homosexual; neither orientation was assumed to be innate. According to Freud, a person's orientation depended on the resolution of the Oedipus complex. He said male homosexuality resulted when a young boy had an authoritarian, rejecting mother and turned to his father for love and affection, and later to men in general. He said female homosexuality developed when a girl loved her mother and identified with her father, and became fixated at that stage. Freud and Ellis said homosexuality resulted from reversed gender roles. In the early 21st century, this view is reinforced by the media's portrayal of male homosexuals as effeminate and female homosexuals as masculine."

Besides being inaccurate (for example, it completely ignores the fact that Freud recognized a biological predisposition toward homosexuality), I note that some of it is followed by "page needed" templates, meaning that no one knows what page of the cited book, Human Sexuality Today, that content is supposedly based on. It may seem unfair to call this content inaccurate and suggest it be removed, when I haven't proposed anything better as a replacement, but it is all definitely sub-standard. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I support removal. On top of the issues you mention, it's not a history section, so it's undue weight on someone whose views are unscientific and discredited. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

talk Apparently you did not carefully read and understand the point. First, I was simply throwing Frued and Gessalt out there for illustrious purposes. (there are many more theorists on the subject matter which are too numerous to mention, all of which demonstrates that there is no "consensus" in the scientific community on the subject.) Further, your point on Fruedian theory is moot, because most psychologists no longer accept Freudian theory in actual practice. Rather the point is that peer-reviewed research by one of the more distinguished universities, which was published in a reputable journal, and then reported on by the mainstream media IS scientific, even if it might be a minority position. - in fact the information reflects the 'lastest' scientific discovery on the subject matter at hand which renders the older citations to be scientifically incorrect information. Last time I checked Wikipedia is supposed to be factually based, with a Neutral point of view. The fact remains that you are attempting to call something "substandard" which is cutting-edge science merely because you disagree with it for your own political reasons, which i highly suspect as your motivation. Therefore, given what WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV clearly state about this your arguments boarder on the clearly frivolous. Therefore it is again reverted for those reasons. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This probably should be moved to the previous section, as this section is a seperate issue, but I am unsure. Anyway, I understand your point perfectly well, just disagree. It's spelled "Freud" and "Gestalt". Lastly, you said, First, I was simply throwing Frued and Gessalt out there for illustrious purposes. (there are many more theorists on the subject matter which are too numerous to mention, all of which demonstrates that there is no "consensus" in the scientific community on the subject.) Further, your point on Fruedian theory is moot, because most psychologists no longer accept Freudian theory in actual practice. You just contradicted yourself in saying that Freudian theory helps demonstrate there is no scientific consensus in one sentence, then in the next admitting psychologists no longer accept it. There is a scientific consensus that Freud was wrong. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

If we are to include Freud's views in this article, which we should as a matter of history (maybe in a History section) and Freud having been so influential, we should not retain unclear and/or inaccurate material regarding Freud in the article. So removal until the content is better presented is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

We have a "Sexuality in history" subsection. Per MOS:HEAD, the section should simply be titled "History," though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed New Article

I plan on creating a new article called “Sexuality under Colonialism” because colonialism has shaped the way we think about every part of society, including sexual relations. This new article will be important in helping people understand that pervasive norms about sexuality are neither inevitable nor natural. Rather, cultural ideas surrounding sexuality are incredibly diverse across time and space, and it is crucial that people have access to knowledge about what is possible, despite historical erasure. Here are some potential sources:

Staff. “Africa Must Decolonise the Violent Patriarchy Solidified by White Colonialism.” The Black Youth Project, May 17, 2018. http://blackyouthproject.com/africa-must-decolonise-the-violent-patriarchy-solidified-by-white-colonialism/. This source will help me understand how colonization brought western concepts about gender roles to colonized countries and how these ideas impacted relationships between men and women for years to come. It will help me learn how power dynamics within sexual and romantic relationships transformed before and after colonization.

Gill, Colin. “Transcending the Binary: Gender and Colonialism.” The Radical Notion, October 31, 2017. http://www.theradicalnotion.com/gender-colonialism/. This source will help me understand how western concepts of gender conflicted with other cultures that understood gender as more of a spectrum than as a binary. It will help me explore cultures that collectively respected non-binary people, and examine how these cultures were impacted by colonization.

Val Kalende, for Think Africa Press. “Africa: Homophobia Is a Legacy of Colonialism.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, April 30, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/30/africa-homophobia-legacy-colonialism. This source will help me understand how homosexual relationships were stigmatized in some countries as a result of colonization. It will help me explore to what extent heteronormativity was a colonial import.

Cogswell, Betty E. "Variant Family Forms and Life Styles: Rejection of the Traditional Nuclear Family." The Family Coordinator 24, no. 4 (1975): 391-406. doi:10.2307/583026. This source will help me understand the possibilities of families beyond a family unit tied together by marriage. For example, it used to be customary in many cultures for a child to be raised by a community.

Here is the link to my Sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HappyGourd/sandbox

My sandbox includes a much more extensive list of potential sources I will be drawing from. HappyGourd (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I know your class expects you to, but I don't really see a need for an article on that particular subject. Rather, such information is better covered in our existing articles.

In a topic like this, it can be difficult, yet still crucial, to make sure that Wikipedia represents what reliable sources as a whole say. Generally, activist blogs and opinion pieces and similar material are not reliable sources. And many reliable sources are clear that patriarchy and restrictive sexual norms and gender roles (even in cultures with third genders) existed in very many non-Western and precolonial human societies, though varying in the details. And yes, colonialism was a very bad thing, but we need to be careful not to romanticize precolonial cultures, as many reliable sources are again clear about.

When it comes to content about human psychology, WP:MEDRS must be followed. MEDRS does not apply when describing what a culture thought was or should be the case, but it would apply when making claims that culture affected individual psychology in a certain way. It can be a fine line to make sure one is not making unwarranted explicit or implicit claims about human nature or psychology in a certain culture or in general.

It is also important to be careful not to take things that applied to certain cultures, and attribute them to non-Western or precolonial cultures as a whole. Rather, it should be specified what cultures the source is talking about.

Finally, it should be remembered that Wikipedia is not for engaging in activism or a place to right great wrongs. Nor should content be written in an essay style. Rather, things should be written neutrally and encyclopedically. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

HappyGourd, see what Crossroads stated above. I also don't see the need for such an article. And sites such as blackyouthproject.com and theradicalnotion.com are not WP:Reliable. If you create such an article, it will likely be cut and merged. Only the decent, non-redundant material would be merged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback! Luckily I have plenty of academic sources in my Sandbox, so I will rely on those moving forward. I will talk to my teacher about the possibility of adding to an existing article rather than creating an entirely new article. HappyGourd (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

HappyGourd's contribution

The article is impressive as a broad subject, and you do a very good job of having an introductory paragraph for a person who wants to learn about Human Sexuality without having to go super deep into Wikipedia. I would suggest working on adding links to the sections you improved and the new ones you added as well as making your contributions a bit deeper than just a paragraph. It would be useful if you rethought the organization of certain sections and see if they really belong in the Human Sexuality article or should be contributions to other articles. Wuchrist (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Freud and infant sexuality

I find it confusing that the only references to infant sexuality come from psychoanalysis which is pseudoscientific. This section should be expanded to at least include its criticisms.190.97.33.144 (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Censorship in the Wikipedia?

It is known that the Holy Bible and the Church Fathers included sexual drive in the list of mortal sins. As I was confused by lack of this important information I decided to add it to the appropriate section of the article (Human sexuality#Religious sexual morality). At first EvergreenFir reduced WP:NOR to the absurd by equating quotations with Original Reseach, and consequently removed them. After I had adduced confirming sources, Crossroads removed my revision again citing WP:RS AGE. It is incorrect because the directions of the Church Fathers (sacred tradition) are reliable forever and cannot become obsolete or outdated in the Eastern Orthodox Church which has no "revisionist" principles, such as ex cathedra and Papal infallibility. Moreover, old sources written by the Holy Fathers are considered to be more reliable and God-inspired than contemporary writings:

According to the teaching of the Fathers, the only kind of monastic life appropriate for our age is a life under the guidance of the Holy Fathers’ writings with the advice of experienced, living monks. But even this advice must be checked against the writings of the Fathers. The Fathers of the first centuries of the Church suggested that one find a God-inspired guide and submit oneself to him in complete, unconditional obedience. The called this the shortest path, which it is, the surest, the one most beloved by God. However, the Fathers who lived a thousand years after the coming of Christ, while repeating the advice of the early Fathers, already complained about the scarcity of God-inspired guides and the appearance of many false teachers. As a solution, they recommended a monk who was guided by the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. The Fathers closest to our own time consider true God-inspired elders to be a thing of the past, and more decisively recommended the guidance of the Holy Scriptures and the carefully considered advice of contemporary monks, but only with the most careful scrutiny of their advice in the light of the same Scriptures.
— Ignatius Brianchaninov, "My Lament", The Field: Cultivating Salvation. Complete works of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Vol. I. Translated by Nicholas Kotar. Holy Trinity Monastery, 2016, pp. 333-334

The same can be said of the argument "Excessive use of WP:PRIMARY sources". This rule has nothing to do with the tenets of religious (Orthodox) faith wherein canonised ("primary") sources are admitted to be infallible. The argument "As [for] a non-English source, it's less than ideal since there is no shortage of English sources on this topic" seems unsound, too: 1) the Eastern Orthodox Church is not English-speaking; 2) information with a non-English source is better than lack of information; 3) nothing prohibits you from adding more "ideal" sources instead of removing information. Similarly, Pepperbeast removed my quotations as soon as I added them to the main article (Religion and sexuality). Such actions seem to be censorship determined by disagreements between Eastern and Western Christianity on sexuality matters. In contrast to the Catholic Church, Eastern Christianity does not proclaim that "sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2362), with it being "noble and worthy" (Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 49: AAS 58 (1966), 1070). In order to avoid one-sidedness when examining Christian views on sexuality, we have to create an appropriate section and place information there. --Puszczanin (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

We do not follow the conventions of the Eastern Orthodox Church regarding the reliability of the Church Fathers (I know nothing of it, but I am assuming you're correct). I'm at the point I'm going to start looking for sources for you. Regardless, if you want to contribute constructively here, you're going to need to adjust to Wikipedia's norms (please see WP:CIR). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No. "Freedom of the press belongs to the man that owns the press." It is no more censorship for Wikipedia to require reliable sources than it is censorship for your church to refuse to publish the Kama Sutra. Their server, their rules.

Do I like all of the Wikipedia policies? No. Does that give me a right to ignore them? Also no. I have the right to refuse to edit articles and to refuse to read articles, but that's it.

Wikipedia is not a theological seminary. The fact that you or your church have faith that something is true is not a reliable source. Perhaps your churches doctrines have not changed over the centuries, but you need a reliable source for that.

There are a lot of editors who will assist you in learning and adapting to the Wikipedia policies, as well as helping you with editing tools, as well as searching for and critiquing sources, and tools for soliciting such assistance. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have made some edits ([39]) to include material that I think reflect the spirit of Puszczanin's edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: "I know nothing of it." Really?!

Well, I'm sorry I thought you were acquainted with this difference between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. As you have a degree in sociology I suppose you took religious studies at your university. I was obliged to learn this academic subject while attending a sociological faculty. Judging from your revision, you confuse exposition of religious dogmas with that of scholarly investigations. Besides, your scholars have nothing to do with the Eastern Orthodox Church, with the consequence that their particular opinions cannot be considered as exposition of Eastern Christian doctrine. Nobody compels you to "follow the conventions of the Eastern Orthodox Church regarding the reliability of the Church Fathers." As a Wikipedian, you only should expound Eastern Orthodox views which do not coincide with scholars' opinions. In that respect, canonised Ignatius Brianchaninov (Sophrony (Sakharov), Silouan the Athonite etc.) whom you have removed is much more reliable than your Elaine Pagels with her personal opinion. I think my revision should be restored because Christian dogmas and studies on Christianity are not the same thing.

@Chatul: 1) "Wikipedia is not a theological seminary." This is why I oppose your and EvergreenFir's attempt to convert Wikipedia into a theological seminary which you create when replacing exposition of a religious doctrine by citing scholarly literature. 2) "The fact that you or your church have faith that something is true is not a reliable source." Please do not distort my words. I've said we should expound Christian dogmas, without going into arguments about their truth or falsity. 3) "Perhaps your churches doctrines have not changed over the centuries, but you need a reliable source for that." Strike me pink!

If so, I understand you now and surmise that it was rather ignorance than censorship. I believed everybody to know that the immutability of the Eastern Orthodox Church constituted its differentia specifica which differed Eastern Christinity from its Western forms, i.e. the Catholic Church and Protestantism (The Fundamentals of Religious Studies: A Textbook. Ed. by Igor Yablokov, 4th edition, Moscow University Press, 2005, p. 185 ISBN 5-06-004254-5). --Puszczanin (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia considers "scholarly investigations" reliable sources usually. Religious expositions alone are not. Perhaps someone at WP:RSN can help explain it better than I can if you still do not understand why. Though it seems you may understand it but reject it. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I find your This is why I oppose your and EvergreenFir's attempt to convert Wikipedia into a theological seminary which you create when replacing exposition of a religious doctrine by citing scholarly literature. truly astounding, given that I had nothing to do with the edit you complained about. As for User:EvergreenFir, he was following Wikipedia policies and cited them for your benefit. Asking for contemporary sources for contemporary religious doctrine is not even close to converting Wikipedia into a theological seminary. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Young adults

Is there a section or article for the sexuality of young adults? The sexuality and age section only has sections for children and the elderly. Anyway... [40] 21:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ceelise.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 June 2019 and 31 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mgammon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HappyGourd. Peer reviewers: Ennis Architect, Wuchrist.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kev1nmcnulty99, Kevin Mcnulty909. Peer reviewers: Carolyn15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of main templates

@Crossroads: A recent (07:34, 25 January 2022‎ ) edit removed a large amount of material that belonged in other articles, but in the process it removed {{main}} templates from several sections. I don't know whether that was deliberate or inadvertent, but I don't see any obvious reason for the removal of the {{main}} templates. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Didn't really notice new links, but links are definitely fine. I'll try to circle back to this and re-add some if I get time if no one else does. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)