Talk:Men who have sex with men/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Transsexual women in MSM?

I was dumbfound to come across this section in the article. Whoever wrote it seems not to know that transsexuality is not a sexual orientation, and transsexual women can, like everyone else, be heterossexual, lesbian, bissexual, or even assexual. Indeed there is some amount of proof that a greater percentage of transsexual women, compared to cissexual women, who are lesbians. In any case, these are very clearly women and not men, regardless of who they have sex with. So a population that includes transsexual lesbian women who have sex with women but is regarded, per this article, as being MSMs is really well, kind of odd. I don't get what the relevance of this section is in the first place even if it were not so, in order to be so proeminently in the article. 87.196.186.123 (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read the section properly, you will see that it is a contested and debated issue. The CDC tends to change as to if transwomen are part of MSM depending upon the application, thus the official response of "are transwomen MSM?" is almost entirely arbitrary. The best I've seen from the CDC is "MSM and the transgendered", as both groups are in a relatively high transmission risk group, where the risks are fairly similar. I agree with your disgust that transwomen would be considered MSM, however MSM is a medical term, and is essentially pretty arbitrarily defined. As I noted before, the entire article and topic of "MSM" could be better rendered as "people engaging in receptive anal sex", or PERAS, or something like that. However, I am not an authority, and the best I, and really any editor to Wikipedia, could do is petition the CDC to reorganize their terms... however, that is vastly beyond the scope of an Encyclopedia, since Wikipedia is not a soap box, and proposing new terms would not be DOCUMENTING usage, but rather PRESCRIBING it. This issue has been long debated, and long discussed between two transwomen, and so do not think that the section was added due to lack of knowledge about trans issues... in fact, the section is the best it can be, while documenting the reality that exists... the "oughts" are not the job of Wikipedia to propose... however, they may be documented, and they are so. --Puellanivis (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I never saw this usage before anywhere, so I can say it is not at all widespread. And as far as I thought, there aren't risk groups, but risk practises. The fact that the persons who wrote it or discussed it are transsexual or not is of no relevance.

Transsexual women can have any genitalia, depending on whether they still haven't had genital surgery/don't want to, or already have, and can have female sexual partners (which is completely ignored in the article, which is squarely based on the assumption transsexual women are all heterossexual), and even those who are heterossexual may never have receptive anal sex (or, indeed, vaginal sex), so... where is the logic? Anyway, what is the relevance of this to MSM? I've studied many leaflets on MSM/WSW leaflets, this question never came up anywhere. Why here? And what information is this at this moment providing the user? More people will be confounded by the section than any enlightenment will come of it. I suggest either dumping it or completely rewriting it. 87.196.179.113 (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The term MSM and transgender is how it is often put and it is put in terms of HIV risk behavior. [This is a list of google results for MSM and transgender.] You can see even from the summaries that google picks out that transgender is seen in that purely medical light as a part of th MSM risk group. This is not abou identity. It would be nice if the powers that be would choose a gender neutral term.... Perhaps instead of MEN who have sex with men...Males who have sex with males...thus only talking about biology and not gender. However as the word is used, and has been used is what WP can report. All we can do is report what is out there. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC):It is worth noting that one of those documents actualy refers to FTM transgender MSM. That's the first time I have seen that.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not lede it follows, I think what we have here helps cast the subject correctly that even scientists and researchers get it wrong but likely this is due to larger societal issues. This article won't fix those issues but i do support the information being here. If we must we can include more qualifying bits but it may be undue. -- Banjeboi 17:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hepatitis A?

Hep B is listed as an STI health issue, but shouldn't Hepatitis A be listed also? A specific risk factor for having hepatitis A is MSM, and the MSM population is at an increased risk of contracting this viral disease... --74.179.117.110 (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

pre-op transwomen

Note:pulled this into its own section as discussion had previously been resolved.

@Benjiboi - For pre-op transwomen who have sex with men the HIV transmission rates actually *do* have something to do with their bodies. They don't have a vagina so they are more likely to engage in receptive anal sex than women (or heterosexual men) -- and so they are more likely to get HIV. And because they have a penis they are more likely to engage in insertive anal sex -- and so they are more likely to pass on HIV.

And yes, horrible discrimination does exist. But even if all the discrimination were to magically go away -- pre-op transwoman and MSM would be a relatively small and relatively sexually isolated group for which a relative high percentage engage in anal sex and role reversal. All adding up to a recipe for an HIV epidemic. What we're learning is that, as far as the underlying cause of HIV levels are concerned: a high percentage of anal sex and role reversal are the key differences when comparing MSM communities to most highly promiscuous heterosexual communities. Hoping To Help (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This may be true, however we need reliable sources to show that (i) pre-op transwomen are classified and studied for these statements. Because of systematic cultural biases including those of researchers this is a field that is largely mis-attributed and miscounted. I feel we can make broad generalized statements that remain accurate but need to be cautious about statements asserting transwomen or transmen are more or less likely to engage in certain activities or are more likely to vector diseases. Similar to the problems with using the blood data to show the MSM are X-times more likely to have HIV, well they got the MSM blood info from STD/HIV clinics. As there are very few transgender-focussed health centers and they are often catering to those who have no health insuance, we need to more cautiously before synthesizing statistics. -- Banjeboi 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

MSM Promiscuity

Currently the article states:

"A [perpetuated stereotype] is that MSM are more [sexually promiscuous] and engage in unprotected sex, but studies have largely discounted these assertions."

But the citations listed don't support the assertion. One citation states that MSM and heterosexuals have similar numbers of unprotected partners -- but says nothing about total partners (the traditional definition of sexually promiscuous).

The other citation calls both assertions into question where it states:

"Conclusions: The persistence of disparities in HIV between heterosexual individuals and MSM in the United States cannot be explained solely by differences in risky sexual behavior between these two populations."

This citation says MSM engage in more risky sexual behavior -- but that alone can't explain the greater HIV prevalence.

At the very least, the contention that MSM are on average no more promiscuous than heterosexuals needs to be removed -- unless several very well regarded studies show otherwise.

Yes, it's a stereotype -- and certainly doesn't apply to all MSM. But, the stereotype that men, on average, would have a lot more sexual partners -- if they weren't limited by women and societal norms, is an age old stereotype ... that is backed by many studies.

Chris Rock jokes that: "Men are as faithful as their opportunities." It's funny because there is more than a grain of truth to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoping To Help (talk • contribs) 22:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The other problem is that the comparison is gay versus straight, not MSM and those who don't. There is a problem in that MSM on the down-low tend to have higher numbers of sex partners, but aren't counted in the number of partners gay men have. You need to see the number of partners MSM have, not gay men. Also, the source is only for the US, and doesn't include other countries. There used to be the following citation in the article: "A 1990 study called The Social Organization of Sexuality showed that men who had at least one male sexual partner in the previous 5 years had an average of 16.7 sexual partners during that time period, while men who only had sex with women had an average of 4.8 sexual partners during that time."[1] What happened to it? Also, what happened to this paragraph?

Anal sex can be an important risk factor for intestinal parasitism.[21] High rates of intestinal parasitism are found in MSM throughout the world.[22] The prevalence of amebiasis is approximately 4% overall in the United States, however the prevalence of E. historylitica or E. dispar in the gay population of New York City and San Francisco approached 40-50%.[23] Guardia lamblia and Entamoeba histolytica have long been regarded as 'exotic' organisms, but are 'hyperendemic' among gay men attending STD clinics with up to 20 excreting cysts."[24] In a controlled study 67.5% of 200 homosexual men but only sixteen percent of 100 heterosexual men were found to be infected with intestinal parasites"...These findings suggest that the male homosexual community may be an important reservoir of potentially pathogenic protozoa."[25] Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Sexual behaviour not sexuality is what spreads STIs. And ... research supports that non-homos also have butt sex - to be blunt. Wedge this novel synthesis in the oral sex and anal sex articles as appropriate. We should not be promoting that a sexual or social identity equates disease vector. It's all related to sexual activities. Down-low was shown in hindsight to be a cultural myth perpetuated by stigmatizing both being black and non-heterosexual and the same time. Recent studies related to same-sex couplings support that on a whole LGBT people show very similar rates in sexual activity, including sexual practices typically associate with gay men, - and disease rates, than everyone else. And those HIV rates in blood donor stats - they're shown to be flawed as well pulling stats for the gay men's blood from ... STD/HIV clinics. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a sexual behavior, not a sexual identity. MSM are the ONLY type of men who have receptive anal sex. Not all MSM have receptive anal sex, but ONLY MSM have it. To be blunt, having a man ejaculate semen into you butt is a health risk and MSM are the only men who experience that. You can explain away all you want, put the fact is that for whatever reason, there are health affects associated with MSM. Now it may be that is just because there is ignorance about safe sex practices, and once that gets perpetuated, the discrepancy will go away, but censoring the information is not the way to promote awareness. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Banjboi's comment about LGBT couples having the same number of sex partners as heterosexual partners is a trick of statistics. Yes, if you average the number of sex partners that lesbians have (low) with the number of sex partners that gay men have (high) it might average out to somewhere near the number of sex partners that heterosexuals have. And to say that MSM or gay men don't have higher rates of HIV is not supported by any reference in the article. The studies all show that on AVERAGE people who engage in MSM have more sex partners than people who don't engage in MSM -- AND they are WAY, WAY more likely to get HIV than men who only have sex with women. And when one argues against that reality, one is not only putting forth false and potentially deadly information -- one is buying into the idea that being promiscuous is bad or that choosing to take calculated risks (sexual or otherwise) is wrong. If that were an absolute truth then we should all only have sex with a total of one person our entire lives -- something that very few people (in the US at least) aspire to, much less achieve.

Hoping To Help (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

@Joshuajohanson -- I would vote for putting those two paragraphs back in. They seem very interesting and relevant. Currently much of the article reads like a watered down, Politically Correct safer sex pamphlet. Lots of telling you that everything is dangerous and one should use lots of barriers without actually giving you any concrete facts. If the MSM article is going to have a health or safer sex section at all it really should include the information about parasites.

Hoping To Help (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the subject of this thread ... myths and stereotypes, like that more married men cheat on their wives than married women cheat on their husbands, are routinely shown to be subject to various flaws in analyzing statistics, researcher bias, subject's unwillingness to fully disclose their activities etc. Promiscuous is a pejorative which generally means one more than I approve of. The latest best study was the Chicago study (15? years ago) which - because they couldn't find many bisexual people(?) simply folded all the data of LGBT folks together no matter what activities were involved or how someone identified. No, we really don't have any good numbers. And there was a great study about suburban housewives who had more anal sex than gay men, ergo having anal sex made you a housewife not gay. We need to move cautiously here and avoid implying things that are untrue or supported by faulty data. -- Banjeboi 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not about sexual identification. Men who have sex with men can include gay men, bisexual men or even straight men who have gay sex in prison. This is specifically talking about the sexual act between two men, regardless of the sexual identities of the men involved. We are not saying that having anal sex makes you gay. We are saying MSM are more likely to have anal sex, probably because when two men have sex together they can't have vaginal sex, because neither one of them has a vagina, so they are more likely to opt for another option. Logically it makes sense. Besides logic, the stats show that MSM are more likely than the general population to have diseases associated with anal sex. Either because they are more likely to participate in anal sex for the lack of an option for vaginal sex or because they have the ability to switch roles between insertive and receptive. We don't know all the causes. All we can do is report the facts. The statistic about surburban housewives having more anal sex than gay men is not the general population. First of all, this is about MSM, not gay men. Second, it doesn't negate the fact that gay men have anal sex more often than the general population. At most you can say that MSM have anal sex more often than the general population, but less often than surburban housewives. Like I said, all we can report is what the reliable sources report, and they report MSM have a higher liklihood to have diseases associated with anal sex than the average population. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be more compelling to actually prove that MSM have more anal sex than women and men who never have sex with men. I doubt there is good research on that. And lots of women do have anal sex. Let's look at each study to see what they actually say and how it could be best used here to serve our readers. I have a hunch when it's broken down a bit the synthesis that seems to be morally motivated will be upended by hard data. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

transwomen

Some sources consider transwomen to be MSM,[3] others considering transwomen "along side" MSM

Very lousy and inaccurate phrasing. This implies being a transwoman means you have sex with men. Gender identify has nothing to do with determining who you have sex with. It should be revised like this "Some sources consider transwomen who are sexually active with men to be MSM, ... ". I would do the edit myself but I'm sure one of you editors will undo it as you always do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.121.92 (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's lousy because the sources use that lousy language.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality undergoing revision

The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.

I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.

Thank you,

Pdorion (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pdorion, I'm really impressed with your vision for a truly encyclopedic article. Your sandbox talk page does a great job laying everything out.

I'm not sure where/how others are to contribute. If we've got ideas for the new outline where should those suggestions be left? Thanks. Hoping To Help (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Physical section needs rewrite or drastic cutting

Most of the text in the physical section is about sex and STI's in general -- without relating it to MSM. As such, most of it needs to be rewritten or eliminated. My plan is to be bold and remove that which doesn't tie in to MSM unless someone steps forward to rewrite it (or has a better suggestion). Hoping To Help (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly useful sources for updating the section:

• http://retroconference.org/2010/PDFs/971.pdf - Comparison of Sexual Behavior Patterns among MSM and Heterosexuals - "MSM have higher rates of HIV and many other sexually transmitted infections (STI) than heterosexual men and women. MSM comprise ~4% of the U.S. male population, yet 75% of male HIV/AIDS diagnoses and 64% of all early syphilis cases.Higher HIV and STI risk among MSM reflects biological and behavioral factors. MSM lack definitive sexual role segregation (insertive vs. receptive) and there are higher HIV transmission probabilities associated with anal vs. vaginal sex. MSM also tend to have higher numbers of sex partners."
• http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/425290 - Understanding the Epidemiology and Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Infections and HIV
• http://sti.bmj.com/content/early/2007/09/13/sti.2007.025627 - Biological and demographic causes of high HIV and STD prevalence in men who have sex with men
• http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/425268 - Sexual Role and Transmission of HIV Type 1 among Men Who Have Sex with Men, in Peru
• http://books.google.com/books?id=3keFfGVL3YYC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=%22sexual+role+segregation%22&source=bl&ots=HIEB0Qo-EV&sig=fxTV3N5_5uxK5bjZpHKil1dhTFw&hl=en&ei=1b8mTKviJcPknAei07m8Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22sexual%20role%20segregation%22&f=false - Cultural and sexual risk: anthropological perspectives on AIDS
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3539811 - Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV/HTLV-III/LAV): a review "In Western countries, the virus is spread mainly by passive anal intercourse among homosexuals and seldom by heterosexual intercourse. In African countries, however, the virus is mainly spread by heterosexual intercourse, probably because of other, concurring, sexually transmitted diseases"
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2059146 - AIDS and heterosexual anal intercourse. - "more than 10% of American women and their male consorts engaging in the act with some regularity. Sexually transmitted disease (STD) data, especially where only the rectum is infected with gonorrhea or other STD agents, buttresses survey data. Considerably more heterosexuals engage in the act than do homosexual and bisexual men, not all of whom participate in anal coitus. Anal intercourse carries an AIDS risk for women greater than that for vaginal coitus, just as receptive anal intercourse carries a very high risk for males. Infection with the AIDS virus is increasingly documented in women engaging in anal coitus with infected males, in America, Europe, and Latin America. Women in Western countries are less likely to continue HIV infectivity chains than are males engaging in same-gender anal intercourse."

• http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/84/5/747?view=long&pmid=8179043 - Risk behavior and correlates of risk for HIV infection in the Dallas County Household HIV survey - " receptive anal intercourse and increasing numbers of male partners had the strongest correlation with the prevalence of HIV and hepatitis B virus infection in men. "

• http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/97/6/1076 - Trends in primary and secondary syphilis among men who have sex with men in the United States. "The overall rate increased 19% between 2000 and 2003, reflecting a 62% increase among men and a 53% decrease among women. In 2003, an estimated 62% of reported cases occurred among MSM. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing syphilis cases among MSM account for most of the recent overall increase in rates and may be a harbinger of increasing rates of HIV infection among MSM."

• http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3102499.html - Condom Use and HIV Risk Behaviors Among U.S. Adults: Data from a National Survey - "In defining HIV risk categories of interest, we have relied on the relatively few exposure categories that account for the source of nearly all recently reported adult and adolescent AIDS cases and HIV infections. Roughly one-half of these reports are from men who have had sex with men, one-third are from injecting drug users and one-sixth have resulted from other sexual behavior."

• http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/him/dlpaper-millettetal.pdf - Focusing “Down Low”: Bisexual Black Men, HIV Risk and Heterosexual Transmission - "A study of heterosexually identified black men in Los Angeles reported that approximately33% of HIV-positive men and 16% of HIV-negative men admitted to engaging in anal intercourse with men.19 Eight percent of black MSM recruited for an intervention study in Chicago identified as straight.34 Likewise, approximately 16% of homosexually active black men recruited for two separate multisite studies identified themselves as straight.12,17 However, identifying oneself as heterosexual and having sex with men is not unique to black men. Between 18% and 34% of heterosexual Latino men and between 18% and 46.5% of heterosexual white men reported anal or oral sex with a man in the past three months or during their lifetime in three of the studies. 12,17,25 One study reported that the level of agreement between heterosexual identity and behavior was highest among Asian men (78.4%) and lowest among white men (34.7%).25 In comparison, the level of agreement for black men was 43%."

• http://www.annals.org/content/145/6/416.full - Discordance between Sexual Behavior and Self-Reported Sexual Identity: A Population-Based Survey of New York City Men - "Previous research has found discordance between self-reported sexual identity and sexual behavior in men (11–13). Several reports (14–22) have focused on risk behaviors among men who have sex with men and acknowledge having male sexual partners but do not report a gay identity. Compared with gay-identified men who have sex with men, these men were less likely to use condoms during anal intercourse with other men (21) and less likely to have been recently tested for HIV infection (17). Because of secrecy about their sexual identity, these men may be distanced from the gay community, where most activities that focus on HIV prevention in men who have sex with men occur; therefore, they may have an increased risk for acquiring HIV infection and other STDs."

• http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=MmcMWpH847ScYfDhGvTv11n2TH5cDpSlKqM656YvKSfsHyp7DQnQ!-289140146!1566849592?docId=5001963414 - Sexual behavior among HIV-positive men who have sex with men: what's in a label? - "Self-labels also appear to be associated with medical and psychological variables. Bottoms may be more likely to be HIV-seropositive than tops because of their preference for RAI versus IAI (Caceres & van Griensven, 1994; Vittinghoff et al., 1999; Wegesin & Meyer-Bahlburg, 2000). Sexual roles also have been associated with masculinity and femininity; one study showed that adults who preferred RAI recalled more childhood gender nonconformity (Weinrich et al., 1992). Mixed evidence exists regarding an association between top or bottom self-labels and femininity in adulthood (Wegesin & Meyer-Bahlburg, 2000)."

• http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/bisexuality.pdf - Sexual Arousal Patterns of Bisexual Men - "In general, bisexual men did not have strong genital arousal to both male and female sexual stimuli. Rather, most bisexual men appeared homosexual with respect to genital arousal, although some appeared heterosexual."

Hoping To Help (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all those links Hoping To Help, just to reiterate this point that was not addressed before, we should avoid giving space to subjects that do not mention MSM. For example, the sub-section on Hepatitis B, reproduced in full:

Hepatitis B is a disease caused by hepatitis B virus (HBV) which infects the liver of hominoidae, including humans, and causes an inflammation called hepatitis. The disease has caused epidemics in parts of Asia and Africa, and it is endemic in China. About a third of the world's population, more than 2 billion people, have been infected with HBV. Transmission of HBV results from exposure to infectious blood or body fluids containing blood. Possible forms of transmission include (but are not limited to) unprotected sexual contact, blood transfusions, re-use of contaminated needles and syringes, and vertical transmission from mother to child during childbirth. HBV can also be transmitted between family members within households, possibly by contact of non-intact skin or mucous membrane with secretions or saliva containing the virus. However, at least 30% of reported hepatitis B cases among adults cannot be associated with an identifiable risk factor.

I believe we should avoid using headers for any health concern unless we have information that fulfills at minimum:

• Statistical evidence that the problem effects MSM more than other groups
• Medical theory on how this impacts MSM (eg. "HIV is spread more readily thorough anal mucus glands.")
• Response from the medical community or the MSM/LGBT communities to address the issue

Diseases where only one of these points apply should be placed under more general topics rather than given their own space. I'm not going to rewrite the article at once, but I am prepared to crop out all off-topic information and start rebuilding slowly. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 22:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

proposed deletion

What is the procedure to delete a page like this. This is an abstract term only a small group of people use and can/be deemed offensive. For instance, there isn't a men who have sex with women, women who have sex with women, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alison312 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done passes WP:N. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Women_who_have_sex_with_women. But the article shows that the distinction between 'gay' and 'MSM' has a particular significance for health. Apalomita (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The picture brouhaha

The picture caption previously had a purpose, in that it stressed the difference between "gay" and "MSM." The current proposed caption is meaningless and could potentially confuse readers. I am restoring something akin to the older caption, because it was actually useful to the reader. SDY (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

How so? It's not showing men having sex, so there is no real usefulness to it. Plus I already brought up BLP issues saying any of these men have sex with men could be BLP and defamatory issues. CTJF83 chat 16:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between "MSM" and "gay" is that the latter is a term of self-identification and the former is a research category that includes people who are not gay. I agree that the picture has minimal value, but at the very least it should attempt to help the reader's understanding of the article instead of just saying "here's some gay people" (which isn't what the article is about). I think that the idea that this is a BLP issue is kind of sad (i.e. that being gay is defamatory in some way), but given recent news items about suicides of people who were "exposed" it's a reality we should acknowledge. I wouldn't oppose removing the picture and caption entirely. SDY (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, removal is probably best...esp since you brought up recent suicides, we don't wanna be a part of that with out pictures. CTJF83 chat 16:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The pic of gay porn actors is irrelevant. Many MSM "choose not to accept" gay. This is a pic of gay actors. An appropriate pic would be someone who has sex with men and who doesn't identify as gay. And... to avoid BLP concerns this person(s) would have to self identify as MSM. Lionel (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually all actors on the image identify themselves as gays. This actors does not include the woman, the boom manager (red shirt), the cameraman (yellow shirt) and the director (black shirt, who is also openly gay). All the other are gays and yes, they have sex with other men. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me offer an example... The Black community is almost universally opposed to homosexual activity. (If you don't believe me just look at the demographics for Prop 8.) In that community MSMs are referred to as "on the down low." Even though it's an euphanism for homosexual, a Black man "on the down low" would vehemently deny he was a homosexual. Oprah did a show on this. So, find a pic of a Black guy who is "on the down low," find a source that "down low" = MSM and you're in business.Lionel (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You want a "down-low" I can say Ricky Martin, Tiziano Ferro and many other (came out gays) that identified theirselves as straight people and at the end of the day, they are not. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What if we went with a drawing? And, if so, what would it need to depict? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If the problem are the pseudoBLP issues about gay people who has gay sex and they identify theirselves as that, an image which represents MSM conduct, even if they have sex with men or not, like go to gay clubs or other patrons. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

MSM was specifically coined to represent men who have homosexual sex but do not identify as gay. This was because early AIDS research was only counting gays and was thus undercounting men "on the down low." Someone who was in the closet and came out is a poor example of MSM. Closeted is different than MSM. Someone who engages in homosexual sex but denies being gay is the best representation of MSM. Lionel (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

From the article, "MSM and gay refer to different things." Using the pic of gay actors is at best confusing at worst misleading.Lionel (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Men who have sex with men (abbreviated as MSM, also known as males who have sex with males) are male persons who engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, ***regardless of how they identify themselves***; many men choose not to accept social identities of gay or bisexual Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Gay is a subset of MSM. Now, what about the drawing idea? It would eliminate any WP:BLP issues. Thanks! 00:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

While technically true, a pic of gays fails to illustrate the concept behind MSM. Someone who might be a good candidate is Ed Schrock. He had sex with men and to my knowledge doesn't identify as gay. Can you draw a man who has sex with men and who doesn't identify as gay? Lionel (talk)

What about drawing prison sex? Lionel (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe like a comic: "Mr. X is 36 years old, he has a wife and two children, but he hides a secret life, he cheated his partner with another man. Mr. X does not identify himself as gay, but he likes to sleep with other men." ore something like that Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the classic situations for MSM is anonymous sex, and bathroom glory holes in particular. That'd be easy to illustrate.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see a need for a picture, unless there is one of 2 men actually having sex, and at least one doesn't identify as gay. Or I suppose a picture of one of these anti-gay senators or priests (can't think of names off the top of my head) who sleep with men would possibly work.... CTJF83 chat 04:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Larry Craig....what about a pic of him, saying "Men who have sex with men may not self identify as gay"...or more BLP issues? I don't really think so, cause he admitted to having sex with men. CTJF83 chat 04:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a bunch of circular arguing. The image and caption are fine, we don't know how all these actors self-identify, the point is that researchers use the term even though these men pictured are men whose profession is to have sex with other men. These side digressions don't make any sense except to prove an article like this that explains labels are confusing is needed to explain why researchers need it. The image is fine because these are public figures who are known for having sex with other men, It would be wrong to say they were all gay unless you had a statement from each of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.15.151 (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit war (1)

Men, such as these gay pornography actors on the set of Men of Israel, may never self-identify as men who have sex with men, but researchers use the phrase for a variety of reasons when studying same-sex sexual behaviours.

Ok, this dispute over the image has to stop. Work it out here first. Once there is consensus, I (or another admin) will unprotect. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

We are trying but seems like Ctj do not want to add an image. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you read WP:BLP and see my clearly good rationale issue with images/captions. CTJF83 chat 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you understand first at all the topic? MSM are men who, regardless of how they identify themselves, have sex with men. The gay actors of the previous image, all self-identify as gay, the have sex with men so: a) they are MSM or b) they have sex with women. Stop using BLP as a shield of your disruptive editing. We are trying to have an image here and you still doing the same. Ed Schrock had sex with a man, he declared himself as gay? no, what's the problem with that. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What I see on my watchlist is a lot of reverts, and that has to stop. If there is need to some mediation or so, let me know. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Do you have a source the 2 men are gay? Have you heard of gay for pay...that is clearly where a BLP issue come in, calling these 2 guys gay, when they might not be. We don't really need an image to accompany this article, unless it is 2 men actually having sex CTJF83 chat 19:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you can see their webpages, Lucas Entertainment profile or the film itself, I am not saying that they are gay per pay I AM saying that they are gays becuase they say that they are. Even you like it or not, THEY ARE HAVING SEX WITH ANOTHER MEN REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, take a breath...source that they are both gay, and fix the caption, and I'm fine...the old caption "Men, such as these gay pornography actors on the set of Men of Israel, may never self-identify as men who have sex with men, but researchers use the phrase for a variety of reasons when studying same-sex sexual behaviours" I think is flawed. Clearly they are MSM, but it's whether they identify as gay, bi, or straight....not if they identify as MSM CTJF83 chat 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that gay porn actors ("gay for pay" or otherwise) qualify as MSM. So the picture is appropriate (unless you want an even more explicit one, do you?). The caption wording proposed by Ctjf83 seems fine to me, although "for a variety of reasons" is superfluous in the caption. That's what the article is for. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Caption wording? I was pointing out a flaw in the caption. What do you mean by a more explicit one? I don't think we want straight (no pun) up hard core sex. CTJF83 chat 20:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the flaw in the caption that made you edit war over the entire picture? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that we were calling these guys MSM without a reference, I have WP:BLP issues. It started with this image which was even more BLP issues than porn stars, and with recent suicides, I didn't want Wikipedia responsible for another by outing someone in a gay bar, that didn't want to be outed. CTJF83 chat 21:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you "have" BLP issues? If you think the picture is not really from a gay porn movie set, then propose the picture itself for file deletion. Note that it has an WP:OTRS ticket, which almost certainly means it depicts what it claims to depict. You appear to be picture trolling; something I've often encountered in articles on sex... Tijfo098 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture trolling doesn't sound like WP:AGF. If we use a picture we should have one with someone like Larry Craig having a sourced caption saying "MSM may not identify as gay"...which I think is the case with Larry. CTJF83 chat 21:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have WP:BLP issues. You said it, not him. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Was just gonna remove part, cause I may have misread it, although not completely clear...yes I have issues with the image violating BLP. CTJF83 chat 21:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have easily exhausted my good faith with your tendentious arguments. Note that the same actors appear in the cover image on Men of Israel: File:Men of Israel dvd cover photo.jpg. You should propose that for deletion as well because you "have BLP issues". Tijfo098 (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Essays are pointless to me...ok, so are we making any headway here, or just going round and round? CTJF83 chat 21:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you noticed that this image appears also at gay bar. If it is a BLP violation and you do not want Wikipedia responsable for other gay-related hate crime, many, if not all, images must be deleted. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice the note I added...and an image of a gay bar on a gay bar page is different then the image on a MSM page. CTJF83 chat 21:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The caption is irrelevant and states something like we are not calling you gay, but the point is that gay haters do no care about your orientation. If they see any of the recognizable men of the photo the could make a hate crime, that's the point. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well this convo is going nowhere with the 3 of us, and combined with User:Tijfo098 lack of good faith, and lack of policy understanding, I'm done with this til someone else interjects. CTJF83 chat 21:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The mark of a troll is how many side issues he brings into a discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling me a troll with over 4 years and 36,000 edits is totally out of line, and I advise you to stop your personal attacks before you are reported. CTJF83 chat 23:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I never called you a troll. People can be prone to unfocused discussion for a variety of reasons, but trolling is a common one on-line, which is what I have stated above. If I enumerate the other reasons, you'll probably be even more outraged. Suffice to say that you have not stated a clear BLP concern here, but you divert the discussion whenever you can. I'll let others judge why you're doing that. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to further this conversation until a 4th person chimes in, due to your lack of good faith, and accusing me of trolling twice. CTJF83 chat 23:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If the problem is a BLP issue, which not, go to BLP Noticeboard, or you can go with an arbritator instead. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't know why I'm getting dragged in to responding..."Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.", there is my reason. CTJF83 chat 23:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

CONTENTUOUS material about those living people. Do you want a source of Matan Shalev having sex with Avi Dar? Simple:

That's all I've been asking for since the very beginning...that and a better caption. CTJF83 chat 00:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And what caption you believe it's proper for the image. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Old: Men, such as these gay pornography actors on the set of Men of Israel, may never self-identify as men who have sex with men, but researchers use the phrase for a variety of reasons when studying same-sex sexual behaviours.

New: Men, such as these gay pornography actors on the set of Men of Isreal, may never self-identify as gay or bisexual.

Isn't that what the article is basically saying, that MSM may not identify as gay or bi...or am I slightly confused? CTJF83 chat 00:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have 2 points about the pic:

1. BLP concerns are legitimate. Generally, a living person in WP can only be labeled gay if they self-identify. This means that the gays in the pic who have self-identified should be pointed out, e.g. "The man 2nd from the right and the man 3rd from the right." This is so that those with unknown orientation are not erroneously labeled as gay. Note that the uploader has only identified Lucas, so using this pic may be a problem.
2. The caption doesn't make sense. People self identify as gay, not MSM. Thus, they will never self-identify as MSM. Lionel (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Finally, someone who agrees with me on BLP concerns! How about a pic of Wolf Hudson, who, according to his page, which we will need to verify, identifies as straight, but is MSM/gay for pay, so a pic of him saying "Not all MSM identify as gay or bisexual"..then no BLP concerns (as long as properly sourced) CTJF83 chat 00:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually no. The caption states that actors not crew. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 01:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• This is not a living person defamatory, etc issue at all, by definition gay porn stars are MSM. These are gay porn stars - men who regardless of how they self-label do have sex with men which is the subject of the article - the caption was correct these men may never self -identify as MSM but researchers do classify them this way. That is the point of the whole article - that it's a label of convenience and those who researcher and number crunch use this label instead of gay, bi, etc. The caption could add that these are men paid to be MSM.Outproud1 (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit war (2)

It is commendable Ctjf83 that you do not want a chance viewing of an image on a Wikipedia page to drive some young man to commit suicide, especially in light of recent events. However, using the image from Men of Israel is not going to give rise to the events with which you are concerned. Let’s review what we know:

1. All gay men are, by definition, men who have sex with men.
2. Any performer in a gay, pornographic film is by definition someone who has sex with men, regardless of whether he identifies as gay, even if such sex only occurs when he is receiving remuneration. Thus, performers in gay porn can safely be labelled men who have sex with men. It’s right there on video for all to see.
3. By any objective standard, the performers depicted in the still from Lucas Entertainment have no expectation of privacy since they have knowingly performed in a pornographic production that they knew, or ought to have known, would have wide release. This particular production was discussed on just about every late-night, U.S. talk show when it was coming up for release since its all-Israeli cast made it newsworthy. Their cover was blown even before the picture’s release.
4. When it was being filmed in Israel, Lucas was very public about the production, even going so far as to hold a press conference at which he introduced his cast. Thus, at home, the performers also showed little concern about being outed.
5. The release of this video, a release to which all the performers expressly consented, is not equatable to a young man being outed because someone released a private, not-for-release, sex tape without his consent.

Since they have no expectation of privacy, and since they consented to the release of the film, and since it is clear that the men in the video are having sex with other men, not only is labelling them men who have sex with men accurate, it is also not defamatory, not libelous, not slanderous. Thus, because of the nature of this particular image, there can be no BLP concern with a caption that reads:

“Although the two shirtless performers depicted in this image may not identify as gay, their performance in an all-male, pornographic film does indicate that they are men who have sex with men, even if such only occurs when being remunerated.”

If there remain any issues at all, they can only be with the caption and not with the image itself. — SpikeToronto 05:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds perfect to me! You fix up the problem with not specifying which men have sex with men, although obvious which two do, by describing them...is this pic/caption good for all? CTJF83 chat 11:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And with me. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just on a note of technical correctness not related to the result - no, not all gay men have sex with men, just as you can walk through the hallways of any high school and see lots of straight guys who do not have sex with women. They just wanna. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A virgin in other words, Nat? You have a point. But, as you say, that doesn’t really affect this outcome. But, it does transport one’s thoughts back to high school … — SpikeToronto 20:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Image RfC

{{rfctag|soc|bio}} Is the inclusion of the WP:OTRS-certified image taken on the set of Men of Israel, File:Michael Lucas Men of Israel film shoot.jpg, a WP:BLP violation in this article? Tijfo098 (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Tijfo, since we seem to be building a consensus here, can we perhaps strike the {{rfctag}} and avoid enlarging the debate. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, although hardly anyone responds to these RfCs... Tijfo098 (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} The main article for anal sex should be at the top of Men_who_have_sex_with_men#Physical not in the middle. CTJF83 chat 20:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with this, the whole section implies all MSM have anal sex which is not true even according to the article and information about oral sex is mostly absent - anal and oral sex are the two main physical differences one would think. Outproud1 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Good point. The tag

See also: anal sex and oral sex

may be more appropriate. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I made my edit before noticing your suggestion to use {{see also}}. Perhaps that looks a little odd in the middle of a section? Would simply wikilinking anal sex be the simplest solution? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, anal sex is already linked in-text. I'm not sure why some editors felt that anal sex is the main topic there. Removing the main tag is probably best. The section starts discussing the number of partners as the first concern; perhaps promiscuity should be linked in-text as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for input from others before proceeding. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My original request was just to move the link to the top of the section, not necessarily in support of the "main" link...just linking to anal sex sounds ok to me. CTJF83 chat 18:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Another edit request

{{editprotected}}

Can someone update the reference <ref name=MedicalNews> currently containing Sexual Behavior Does Not Explain Varying HIV Rates Among Gay And Straight Men with Goodreau, S. M.; Golden, M. R. (2007). "Biological and demographic causes of high HIV and sexually transmitted disease prevalence in men who have sex with men". Sexually Transmitted Infections. 83 (6): 458–462. doi:10.1136/sti.2007.025627. PMC 2598698. PMID 17855487. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)? Thanks. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Why can’t we add the new cite as a new, separate reference, and keep the “Sexual Behavior Does Not …” reference as well? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The MedicalNews article is simply a popular science report on the paper. We could have two footnotes, but since there's a mechanism for dealing such issues built into the cite journal template, why not use it? Tijfo098 (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few news stories based on that paper, e.g. [2] [3]. There's some rule in WP:MEDRS#Popular press to prefer the science paper to the journalists' interpretation thereof (probably because they are not independent sources, and sometimes get some science wrong). Besides, the original paper is free in PubMed Central (as linked). Tijfo098 (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I do on a daily basis is to review recent publications in medical literature within a certain defined area. I then usually pass along anything of interest bundled thusly: medical journal article + related medical journal editorials + the popular press’s reporting of it. Thanks for the WP:MEDRS#Popular press info; I rarely if ever edit in that subject area at Wikipedia. — SpikeToronto 20:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Image consensus?

Did I get it that there is consensus about the image and its caption? If so, I will unprotect. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes please, us 3 main debaters agree to the image/caption. CTJF83 chat 21:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fine too, that makes 4. Will unprotect. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

New Caption: Objection

Old: "Men, such as these gay pornography actors on the set of Men of Israel, may never self-identify as men who have sex with men, but researchers use the phrase for a variety of reasons when studying same-sex sexual behaviours."

New: “Although the two shirtless performers depicted in this image may not identify as gay, their performance in an all-male, pornographic film does indicate that they are men who have sex with men, even if such only occurs when being remunerated.”

The train is off the tracks here people, the new caption doesn't even make sense and you seem to be stereotyping that all men who do gay porn are gay which is false. I'm not sure if renumeration is a porn term but the entire caption lends to more confusion than clarity.

I suggest -

"Men, such as these performers on the set of Men of Israel, a gay pornography film, may never self-identify as men who have sex with men, but researchers use the phrase for a variety of reasons when studying same-sex sexual behaviours."

At least this explains why the photo is used here. Outproud1 (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Outproud1, you misunderstand on several levels:

1. When you say, “you seem to be stereotyping that all men who do gay porn are gay,” you are misreading the caption. It says quite the opposite, which was clear to the heretofore unanimous consensus. It makes clear that although a man who does gay porn may be a man who has sex with men, he may do so while not considering himself gay.
2. No one identifies as MSM. MSM is a classification used by epidemiologists, sociologists, etc. One indentifies as either gay or not gay. Your proposed caption turns the concept on its head. Moreover, as the debate above shows, we were not able to build consensus around such a caption.
3. The statement earlier that these men are paid to be MSM may or may not be true. Gay-for-pay is a subset of MSM, just as gay is a subset of MSM. There are many gay porn performers who, while not identifying as gay, are men who have sex with men, even outside of porn in situations where they are not being paid.

Finally, consensus does not require unanimity. While consensus can change, it usually will not change in a matter of hours simply because one editor objects to the consensus arrived at. I know that you are new and have not edited any other wikiarticle so far, but the norm now, since consensus can change over time, is that we sit with this photo and caption for several months and then, if necessary, would revisit it. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 03:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus should not matter if it is dead wrong, the "new" caption is horrendous and adds more confusion which I regret. The caption reinforces a negative stereotype that being labelled gay or MSM is bad. People do identify as MSM as well as shirk off all labels. One does not identify either or as a gay or not gay, people identify long many descriptors including questioning, queer, bi, etc. The failing to build consensus was driven by stonewalling on one side which is the worst way to build consensus ("I won't give in so you must"). Gay-for-pay is certainly not a subset of MSM, that presumes all who are gay for pay engage in gay sex which is not true. Gay is also not a subset of MSM, this fundamental errors are likely what led to such a poor comprehension of issues, simplifying them with false presumptions helps no one. And no this consensus was bull-dozed through over several days so there is no reason a substandard caption should remain for months just because more educated decisions were not rushed to the finish line in time for someone to arbitrarily call the discussion finished.Outproud1 (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The current caption is fine...do we really need to start a debate/edit war again?? I think not. CTJF83 chat 11:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Outproud, I’m sorry but your understanding of the concepts is incorrect, topsy-turvey even, hence your dislike of the caption. No one else engaged in this discussion perceives the concepts in your unique way. Finally, I failed to see any bulldozer forcing consensus.

Ctjf83, I do not anticipate a new edit war. We have a consensus, so long as it holds. Editing against consensus constitutes disruptive editing. Any editor editing against consensus — i.e., changing the caption or reverting — could face sanctions. From WP:CON: “editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.” Also, from WP:DISRUPT: “disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely.”

Thanks! — SpikeToronto 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Need for image?

Having read through the talk page discussions about the image caption, I am reluctant to even ask, but why is there an image at all? How does that image (or any image) help the reader? Is this an attempt to condense the entire nuanced subject into a single sentence?

If a reader wonders what men who have sex with men look like, there is no picture that can adequately begin to answer that question. Choosing any one image gives a reader a necessarily false impression, especially if that image is of commercial gay porn performers. Delete the image and any debate over captions will also go away. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you suggest an image of an actual MSM sex act?...and ya, why discuss the image after the long debate over the caption. CTJF83 chat 11:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, DC's point is well taken. Does singling out one aspect of MSM, gay-for-pay, improve the article? Is the article better with the pic? "No" for the former, and now that I think about it, "no" for the latter. IMO I don't see a problem with any disussion which improves the encyclopedia. Lionel (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ctjf83, perhaps you misunderstood my comments. I suggest that there is no image that is appropriate for this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Guess I did...well I think even an ok/bad picture is better than none. CTJF83 chat 03:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to have images in articles if they are not helpful to he reader. A "bad picture" is clearly not needed. Any objection to my removing the image altogether? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, can you inform the other 2 of this discussion, and then if they both agree to remove it, I'll go with the consensus. CTJF83 chat 01:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, remove it.Lionel (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Makes no difference to me. The only reason I worked towards consensus above was that I thought the regular editors of the article really wanted a pic, and to help end the edit war and get the article unlocked. They do dress up an article. But, if it’s not adding anything to an article … ditch it. Hey! How about a drawing of two men engaged in a sex act? :) — SpikeToronto 19:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I (clearly) would have no problem with that...you got one handy?....but you know people would complain. CTJF83 chat 21:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a chap here at Wikipedia who creates drawn images of various sex acts where a photograph is perhaps not appropriate (example). Perhaps we could approach him to do one of two men, say at a glory hole (he says half seriously, half jokingly). It would certainly capture the down-low aspects of non-gay-identifying-men-who-have-sex-with-men! :) Just a thought … — SpikeToronto 00:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd honestly like to see some sort of picture, just because the article looks better with one, but given that we can't agree on one I'd rather just leave it out until someone has a better idea. The picture that was present from before this disaster had one useful feature, which was a caption that clearly established that MSM is not just a polite euphemism for gay and is a research classification, not an identity. Those are the two "big ideas" that anyone reading the article should walk away with, and putting them in a caption in the first image of the article draws the reader's attention.

Just as food for thought, a venn diagram that demonstrates "gay" "bi" "gay-for-pay" and such as subsets of MSM might be a decent image for the lead. I guarantee no BLP concerns. Someone might have to actually make the diagram if we can't find one, though. SDY (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would work well...you can't be gay and bi, or gay and gay for pay. CTJF83 chat 00:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess that wasn't clear. You would probably have a big circle labeled "Males", a circle within that circle that is "MSM", and inside the "MSM" circle you would have smaller circles labeled gay, bi, etc... If you wanted to be fancy you could even have part of the gay circle outside of the "MSM" circle to represent gay men who are not sexually active (ditto bi, etc...). SDY (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, that makes a little more sense ;) CTJF83 chat 00:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, SDY, we did reach a consensus on the current image and caption. It’s just that then we realized it doesn’t really add value to the article! I like your suggestion of a Venn diagram: something that presents a graphic understanding of the concept. I also wonder if it could be flow charted in any way, using if/then conditional/decision symbols? — SpikeToronto 00:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea of a diagram that shows that MSM is a superset of gay, bissexual, and by the way the CDC has defined it in the past MTF transgender people and the men who have sex with them, any biologically male person who has sex with other biological males. A diagram would not single out any one or any expression per se... it could briefly and to the point express just what the main idea is. I.e. One big circle for men who have sex with men. In side a circle for gay, bissexual and other. I can't see anyone being offended by it. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you create a rough draft for us? CTJF83 chat 21:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

For once I have nothing better to do so I'll give it a shot. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand the discussion here, there seems to be a recognition that the image is decorative only (and that someone somewhere sometime will maybe work on a diagram that can itself become the subject of discussion). Therefore I am removing the image. If I have misinterpreted the consensus here, feel free to revert and clarify here how the image serves the reader. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

" However, many MSM do not engage in anal sex,"

Really? Do we have source for this?

50.9.109.170 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Removed Agree, unsourced. CTJF83 21:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I sourced it. Ctjf83 and I are familiar with this from the Frot article. It's also covered in the Anal sex article. The term "MSM" covers gay men and men who identify as bisexual just as much as it covers those who do not identify as either. And, well, many gay men do not engage in anal sex. I'm not sure if some of the sources I added cover every type of man who has sex with another man, but they do cover gay men and I think men who identify as bisexual as well. I'd have to read through the books in whole. But the point is that not all men who have sex with men engage in anal sex. In fact, plenty do not. Flyer22 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

We could also alternate the wording as "However, many in the MSM community" or "However, many gay men in the MSM community," if it is felt that the sources are too narrow in their scope (mostly being about gay men) to simply be applied to the MSM label. Flyer22 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Some bi and gay men do, and some do not engage in anal sex or sex involving the anus, or anal intercourse. MSM is just another term for closeted/down low bisexual and gay men that's all. It's nothing new and a lot of out bisexual men like myself as well as gay male friends of mine hate the term since it's a term coined by the CDC and media to lump us into statistics while ignoring our actual sexuality.108.16.0.94 (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Giardiasis as "common among gay men"

I suggest the removal of the statement that "giardiasis is common among gay men". First, the supporting citation is a broken link, which I tagged. Second, what exactly does "common" mean? Third, this article is about "men who have sex with men", not "gay men".HeyFK (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

HeyFK, where is the line you speak of? When I find it (as it seems I will have to on my own), and if I can replace the link through Internet Archive, why should it be removed? As I stated above, "The term 'MSM' covers gay men and men who identify as bisexual just as much as it covers those who do not identify as either." That is why this article includes sources dealing with gay men. Not to mention, "gay" can refer to male homosexuality of any kind. Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The last line of the article. A valid citiation showing the prevalence of Giardiasis amongs MSM vs. the wider population must be provided to justify the claim that it is "common". HeyFK (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the link was just moved and the reference can be found here: [4] It says only "[Giardiasis] is known to be transmitted between gay men." I decided to look it up a bit and found this link that says simply that Giarda is spread through oral contact with infected fecal matter, such as through "oro-anal sexual contact." Another place that makes this link is what appears to be an HIV-denialism article here though it is not sourced. I finally started coming across scientific studies, which seem to fit into two categories: studies which look at people coming into clinics for treatment and studies which examine only gay men. From my quick research I believe that, while it has evidence in support, it's not a notable health concern for MSM (it's generally asymptomatic and easily treated except in people with compromised immune systems) and so I would support removal. On that note, you've gotten me thinking about another aspect of this article... Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Overcitation

I count 8 instances (well, now 6) where more than 2 references are cited at once, the worst of them using 8 unique citations. I suggest removing (or perhaps moving to Further Reading) several of these to cut down on information overload.

The first citation clump, [1] through [5], is just a case of pulling various sources out of context. These are present in certain unique areas as well as two clumps to define MSM and transwomen, though I only found one among them that defined those terms (rather than assuming them). Accordingly I've un-cited them from the larger clumps. Many of the rest of these citation overload areas are unique sources, however, so we may need some sort of consensus on how to handle them.
Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 05:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I'm just now replying. I'd seen this section much earlier, but got sidetracked.

Anyway, yes, there is citation overkill. Obviously. And I committed the worst instance (as shown in the discussion above) when citing the fact that not all MSM engage in anal sex. However, there are some instances where multiple references are a good thing. I don't mind three or more references backing a line, but have recently started to prefer that no more than four to six be added. That said, I agree that going past two is often not needed because of redundancy. I just shortened the citation overkill I created to four references, because I believe that such a statement as that requires more than two...due to the misconception that all gay men engage in anal sex...or that most do. Flyer22 (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If the citations are good quality, then why not bundle them per WP:CITEBUNDLE? Turning used sources into unused sources stuffed into an apparently crufty Further Reading section is to be avoided. Bundling cuts down on the visual clutter of the page without losing the extended sourcing that some might find useful to find in a footnote. Obviously naff sources can be dropped in favour of the better ones at any time. Fæ (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion and points, Fæ. Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up that one Flyer22. I understand the need to prove things which may be controversial, and the bundle works well enough in those instances. I was also looking at the strangely obvious claim "HIV can infect anybody, regardless of sex, ethnicity, or sexual orientation," with citations very tangential to the article. With these out of the way I have to admit I've lost my zeal for this topic. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 07:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture

I don't intend to reignite the whole stupid debate, but surely the significant thing about MSM is that they look just like all the other ordinary (i.e., straight) men you've seen. That's the whole point: judging by their behaviour, what we call straight men are not strictly defined by who they don't have sex with; so they might as well be illustrated by a royalty-free photograph of unexceptional and culturally working-class men.

Nuttyskin (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Untrusted Citation

Citation number ten, which is supposed to prove that 2% of the US and 4% of American males are classified as MSM. The article cited does not explain how this number was created.

--PrincessWilly (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A reference only needs to come from reliable source: the source does not, itself, need to provide citations for every statement. I would say that the United States Centers for Disease Control is about as reliable a source as a Wikipedia editor could find.

I think there is a bigger problem here, though: the article LGBT demographics of the United States cites a study that says 3.5% of American adults identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual, and 0.3% as transgender. Since the number of openly gay or bisexual men is more than 2% of the population, and because there are many men who have sex with men who do not identify as gay or bisexual, the 2% figure would seem to be too low. I have no problem using a different reference and changing the text of this article, if a better reference can be found. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I found 2002 study at the CDC which says, "Among males 15–44 years of age, 5.7 percent have had oral sex with another male at some time in their lives, and 3.7 percent have had anal sex with another male; overall, 6.0 percent have had oral or anal sex with another male" and that, at the time the research was conducted, 2.9% of men had had at least one such encounter within the last 12 months. I will edit the first paragraph to reflect this information and citation. That should clear up the problem. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 July 2012

Please change "transwoman" to "trans woman", because, as the article for trans woman states, "many see it as an important and appropriate distinction to include a space in the term, as in "trans woman", thus using "trans" as merely an adjective describing a particular type of woman; this is in contrast to the usage of "transwoman" as one word, implying a "third gender"."

Please either change "biologically male" to "with penises", or change "people born either biologically male or with ambiguous genitalia" to "people assigned male at birth or born with ambiguous genitalia". The first edit is both more accurate (as karyotype is generally not checked at birth, and people can be born with penises and testicles without being XY, so "biologically" male just seems to mean "visually what is considered male") and less hurtful. The second edit is more accurate, for the same reasons, and is consistent with other articles that reference assigned sex.

67.68.57.2 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a simple factual matter. The proposed edits should be made. It’s ridiculous that I can’t just edit the article myself. Correctrix (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Correctrix. It was inappropriate of you to change the edit request template to indicate that this matter has not been answered; this is obviously an old edit request that has been answered. Therefore, you should have instead started a new edit request for this matter; it would not have been an issue for you to refer to this edit request in that one. One thing I can offer on this matter is similar Wikipedia discussions with regard to anatomical sex and gender wording; see, for example, this one. It might be useful to you. That stated, the "trans woman" and "people assigned male at birth or born with ambiguous genitalia" requests are reasonable.

As for you not being able to edit this article: This article is indefinitely semi-protected due to the persistent vandalism or other unconstructive edits it faces whenever it is unprotected. Registered editors, when they click on the "Edit source" option, can see that "Persistent vandalism" is the reason given for the indefinite semi-protection of this article. Once you are WP:Autoconfirmed, you will be able to edit this article and other semi-protected articles. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed New “HIV and MSM” Article

As part of a class at Rice University, I propose to start a new Wikipedia page entitled “HIV and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)” to expand the current small subsection on the Men who have sex with men page. The current HIV subsection of the MSM page is far more detailed than anything else on the MSM page (everything else is merely a survey) and would benefit from having freedom to expand by itself. If the subsection on the existing MSM page were expanded to encompass the available scholarly information, it would drastically overwhelm the page. The page for MSM should broadly talk about issues faced by this population rather than devoting a significant amount of discussion to one topic. By expanding the subsection about HIV on the MSM page, it would unfairly bias the page to make it appear that HIV is the only health issue faced by that community (whereas other STDs, rape, and mental health issues should not be overlooked.) The CDC, UNAIDS, and AVERT websites all have pages specifically dedicated to HIV and MSM so Wikipedia should have a page that goes into an equal level of detail. The page should also include information beyond public health risks alone, like the stigma associated with an HIV diagnosis in the MSM community and prevention methods. This would make the page a thorough sociological analysis of how HIV affects the MSM population. Cshaase (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The proposed article should arguably be this article - the term MSM was created as part of HIV research. It's spilled into general public health usage and is used elsewhere but the history is entirely about HIV/AIDS. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

An interesting piece of history

This article talks about the history of the term MSM, and notes one quirk - it was originally "Men who have sex with men but do not identify as gay". The term has obviously changed and now includes gay men, but it's an important part of the history. There's a lot of useful history in that paper that could be added to this article. Another interesting quote: "This transformation remains incomplete: an antagonism to gay identity continues to animate “MSM,” particularly when “gay” is assumed to refer solely to white Western men." Is conflating MSM with gay, then, somewhat racist, and should we take greater pains in the article to divorce the two? 71.231.186.92 (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Blood donation info

An editor, Prcc27 (talk), made some useful additions about MSM and blood donation bans. I rolled them back, because they didn't really fit the location where they were put. I think it would be useful to have in the article, though, if we can come up with a new section and probably expand on the info so it is not so US-centric. Thoughts? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I definitely think it would be useful to use in the article. --Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Regional bias again!

Nearly all from a First World/Anglophone contemporary perspective, nothing about people from other areas of the world. In the Muslim world/Middle East for example, this activity is common before marriage, and people turn a blind eye to it. (In other words, it is tolerated, but not generally acknowledged. The participants do not consider themselves homosexual) Instead, this article quotes a number of Western (and ANZ) sexologists and studies. What about Japan? There's a tradition of this there as well, that predates western influence.

Also no mention of voyeurism - this is more the case with the women article - but certainly some people engage in this activity for a third party.-193.39.159.73 (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Female partners of men who have sex with men blood ban map

Would it be okay to add this map..?

Blood donation policies for female sex partners of men who have sex with men

  Female sex partners of men who have sex with men may donate blood; No deferral

  Female sex partners of men who have sex with men may donate blood; Temporary deferral

  No Data

--Prcc27 (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

HIV and syphilis co-infection among MSM

Co-infection of HIV and syphilis is often seen among seen among MSM because of synergistic nature of these two diseases. It is hypothesized that the association observed between syphilis and HIV among MSM is probably due to similar risks associated with both infections. Analysis of data from a survey among MSM in seven Chinese cities reveal that the factors significantly associated with co-infection are older age, education up to senior high school, unprotected anal intercourse, recent STD symptoms, and incorrect knowledge about routes of transmission.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

References

MSM blood donor controversy image has wrong color coding

the image that shows the world blood donation policies for men who have sex with men is wrongly coded. the regions are coded in red, whereas the legend shows two different blues and only one red (i.e. there are no regions colored blue, and the only red codes incorrectly; whole coding in the image legend is erroneous). needs correction.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men#MSM_blood_donor_controversy

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Men who have sex with men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060821163524/http://www.latrobe.edu.au:80/arcshs/downloads/Reports/Asia%20MSM.pdf to http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs/downloads/Reports/Asia%20MSM.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Men who have sex with men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713125016/http://www.aidsportal.org/News_Details.aspx?ID=5208 to http://www.aidsportal.org/News_Details.aspx?id=5208&nex=5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910171338/http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/African_American_Transgenders_and_HIV.ppt to http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/African_American_Transgenders_and_HIV.ppt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928011837/http://www.unaids.org/en/dataanalysis/epidemiology/2009aidsepidemicupdate/ to http://www.unaids.org/en/dataanalysis/epidemiology/2009aidsepidemicupdate
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140409175738/http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2007/pr079-07.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2007/pr079-07.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://portal.health.fgov.be/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/INTERNET_PG/HOMEPAGE_MENU/ABOUTUS1_MENU/INSTITUTIONSAPPARENTEES1_MENU/HOGEGEZONDHEIDSRAAD1_MENU/ADVIEZENENAANBEVELINGEN1_MENU/ADVIEZENENAANBEVELINGEN1_DOCS/AVIS8094VALID.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014142001/http://www.kph.org.pl/pl/edukacja/honorowe-krwiodawstwo to http://www.kph.org.pl/pl/edukacja/honorowe-krwiodawstwo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014142001/http://www.kph.org.pl/pl/edukacja/honorowe-krwiodawstwo to http://www.kph.org.pl/pl/edukacja/honorowe-krwiodawstwo

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Men who have sex with men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228122854/http://www.health.vic.gov.au/ideas/diseases/hepb to http://www.health.vic.gov.au/ideas/diseases/hepb
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080224145753/http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm to http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Moving/merging table to MSM Donor controversy

The table of donor rules is duplicating the one on the Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy. I believe it can be removed here - this is not the main topic of the article. I will merge the info, then delete the one here. IF in the end we decide to have it here as well, we should aim to transclude the one from the specific article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NisJørgensen (talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Men who have sex with men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20071012005526/http://171.66.121.65/cgi/content/full/157/11/966 to http://171.66.121.65/cgi/content/full/157/11/966
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217062338/http://www.ndsc.ie/hpsc/A-Z/Gastroenteric/Giardiasis/Factsheet/ to http://www.ndsc.ie/hpsc/A-Z/Gastroenteric/Giardiasis/Factsheet/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061014101521/http://portal0.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D2860%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html to http://portal0.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D2860%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)