Talk:Sapiosexuality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Identify as sapiosexual"?[edit]

I'm not sure we should use "identify as sapiosexual on OkCupid", might be more factual to say "have marked the 'sapiosexual' option on OkCupid" – Thjarkur (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving this here for posterity[edit]

":But Wikipedia articles should be based on the coverage of the subject in reliable sources, not on our personal understanding of the topic or our opinion of the choice of word currently in vogue for that topic. – Uanfala (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)"[reply]

Recreation of this article yet again[edit]

Shalor (Wiki Ed) and Missvain, regarding this, I still don't see that this article should exist. This is per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapiosexuality (4th nomination) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 11#Sapiosexuality. I don't see what has changed since 2017 and 2018. And I'm ready to AfD the article again. Sexual attraction to intelligence should simply be covered at the Sexual attraction article. This WP:NEO article is not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And here, we see Emiller202, stating, "There aren't too many scholarly sources about sapiosexuality." Not too many? Try "barely any." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G4? -Crossroads- (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, is this "substantially identical" to the last deleted version? I never saw it, but based on the AfD comments and comments left at AfC for this draft, it sounds like the previous version was very short, and essentially a dictionary definition. While it has its shortcomings, this version is more than a WP:DICTDEF. Also, the outcome of that last AfD was "merged to OkCupid, until such time as substantial content develops", so they deliberately left the door open for re-creation of a standalone article. Colin M (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With over a decade of editing experience, and of course, the occasional mistake – I assure you I would have never even touched this article if I did not think it deserved to be here and was notable enough. It has room to expand and frankly, I've been using the word sapiosexual (sort of tongue in cheek, but sort of not) way before OKCupid even existed. While yes, select sources might seem immature (Seventeen magazine, an icon of my girlhood), there are white papers that write about the subject and its place in sexuality and popular culture. I mean come on, if pansexual has an article, why can't sapiosexual? Both are now part of the sexuality lexicon, at least where I reside (California). Also, this article was written as part of a Wikipedia in the classroom program, which usually involves vetting of subjects. I think it's legit, notable, and completely deserves to stand on its own. This article has changed, it has expanded, and if I have to sit here and bomb this talk page with more citations to prove that sapiosexual is notable, then I will. Missvain (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And while having a Wikipedia article in another language does not inherently mean it will have one in English, sapiosexuality has an article in both German and French. Missvain (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Colin M and Missvain, look at the poor sourcing for this article. I mean, Clip Syndicate? CineKink? Linking to the iTunes Apple App Store? And besides some poor souring in the article, the topic is still significantly focused on OkCupid and dating sites because that's just about all of the attention it has gotten. That is significantly different from coverage of pansexuality, which is considered an aspect of bisexuality and has some coverage in academic sources. A number of topics on Wikipedia have suptopics. Pansexuality is defined by various reliable sources as a subset of bisexuality. Pansexuality has received enough attention to warrant its own Wikipedia article. What is sapiosexuality a subtopic of? Intelligence? Sexual attraction? It's certainly not a subset of sexual orientation. It is not a sexual orientation, by any authority on sexual orientation. And it is hardly discussed outside of OkCupid and dating sites. It ceased getting a lot of attention back in 2015 and 2016, although it still gets some attention today. And regardless of whether or not it is notable, not every notable topic needs its own Wikipedia article; WP:No page is clear about that. Wikipedia should not be used to publicize this topic and get it more attention. As for WP:Student editing, given what I and others stated about student editing this year at WP:Med, I don't see how the fact that a student wrote this is an argument for keeping it. The content that should be kept can be merged elsewhere.
Pinging editors from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapiosexuality (4th nomination) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 11#Sapiosexuality for their thoughts on this latest incarnation: Indy beetle, Rusf10, TheValeyard, Knox490, power~enwiki, Carrite, Galobtter, Malinaccier, Drmies, Timtempleton, Thryduulf, Czar, Hildeoc, and Bsherr. Also pinging Chris troutman because he made this edit.
All that stated, this is what the article looked like before and the current version is a significant improvement. And if consensus is to keep this current version, it's just something I'll have to go along with. I won't AfD the article again at this time.
Anthony Appleyard, by moving this article from Sapiosexual to Sapiosexuality, the previous edit history and version of Talk:Sapiosexuality was lost as part of the history. I do see that you moved it to Sapiosexuality (version 2) and Talk:Sapiosexuality (version 2). But shouldn't it be directly a part of the article's history? BD2412, as the closer of the fourth AfD and as someone with experience on moving articles, any thoughts on that? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have any particular insight to add to the discussion. Deletion/merger and restoration processes can wreak havoc on edit history. bd2412 T 02:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, thanks for stopping by to comment. I don't see a benefit to the Sapiosexuality edit history being split. It didn't have a lot of edit history to begin with. And what is currently disambiguated as "version 2" came before the current version. We should at least link to Sapiosexuality (version 2) and Talk:Sapiosexuality (version 2) somewhere at the top of this page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you've already looked at it, is the current content basically identical to the previously merged content? If the content is different, edit history won't relate much. If it is similar, I would agree that it should be merged back under the current page. bd2412 T 02:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the article looked like before. This is what it looked like at the time of my "01:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)" comment. And this is what it looks like after Drmies's cuts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Appleyard, I see. But I also find it troublesome that this current version is sitting at the Sapiosexuality title and pushed out the previous version that was never deleted. That previous version still existed; it's just that the article was redirected. And, yeah, it still exists now, but it's an odd setup. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Appleyard, to be clear, I didn't ask you to histmerge. I asked, "shouldn't [the previous version] be directly a part of the article's history?" And here at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, Vycl1994 asked you to move "Sapiosexual" to "Sapiosexuality." It would have been better if Vycl1994 or someone else had simply copied and pasted the new sapiosexual material to the Sapiosexuality redirect, turning it back into an article, and then redirected "sapiosexual" to that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was pinged here. I voted Delete in the third debate, calling it a DictDef or a Non-Notable Neologism. I'm now convinced that the former has been addressed in this new version and that the term's existence has been sufficiently persistent. Moreover, with the articles in The Independent and Vice cited in the article and its use as a headline in Jet, the term pretty clearly now passes GNG. So I have changed my mind about the tpoic and the article should be kept, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Excellent work on the list below Missvain... Be sure to sign your work with the four ~ at some point. Carrite (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oopsy! Fixed. Thanks User:Carrite, been a while – nice to bump into you :) Missvain (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parallel to Carrite, I would have a hard time !voting delete. There are sources (trashy ones) that address the subject in detail. When NYT stoops to that level, it's hard to claim the subject doesn't pass GNG. I, too, dislike watching our editors trying to make fetch happen and I typically seek to discomfit them. This time, I'll not participate in that AfD if it happens. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not going to be convinced otherwise. You might not like it, you might find some of the sources in the article or sources below "trashy" (and I read some of them, so whatever – just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's trashy or any less "reliable" or secondary) but this is a notable subject. It deserves inclusion. Consider improving rather than deleting. Just look at the links below. Made me laugh to see how every "sexuality" (for lack of better words) is blue linked in that OKCupid sexuality list except this one. And this was around before OKCupid existed. No point in arguing. Improve or move on! The links below should be enough. And putting this through another deletion would be ridiculous. It would pass. Happy Sunday. Missvain (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As much as it is obvious that real academics pretty much ignore this label, and the fact I strongly suspect this article's existence intentionally or not plays a promotional role, at least here we can make clear to people the criticisms of the concept and that it is not a sexual orientation. I think the many sources that have been brought up are mostly fluff pieces. I would tilt delete at AfD, but realistically, I doubt enough others would. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was created by a student as part of a Wikipedia in the classroom program. Sadly, I can't find the user now due to the history issues. So it was not promotional. Did you see the links below? Those aren't fluff pieces. And even if you might consider one or two "fluffy" they are reliable secondary sources and totally show how this "sexuality" (oof) has become part of popular culture – and not just in the United States. Missvain (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Missvain, Carrite, Chris troutman and Crossroads1, I understand covering the topic on Wikipedia. I was never against that. I was against unnecessarily having a Wikipedia article on it. I suggested covering the topic in another Wikipedia article. As seen at Talk:Sapiosexuality (version 2), I've favored covering it at the Sexual attraction article because sexual attraction to intelligence has been talked about long before OKCupid listed the term "sapiosexual" as an identity option. Having the topic of sexual attraction to intelligence covered there, with mention of the term "sapiosexual" and what this article covers regarding it, would be more beneficial than having a WP:Stub or what is essentially a WP:Stub. This current version of the article is only a little bigger than this old version of the topic (the one that was the subject of the fourth AfD). And in the case of the current version, I'm still not seeing a need for the Wikipedia article. The sources listed below don't automatically equate to a sustainable article. If anything, they show that the article would just be a bunch of "in the media" pieces, when "in the media" material is usually regulated to "In the media" sections" in our Wikipedia articles. Such material doesn't usually make up the whole article. And passing mentions in media sources, especially those that focus on a certain person identifying as a sapiosexual, are not enough. The topic is still largely tied to OKCupid, as is clear by the 2017 The New York Times source. Most of the sources listed below existed at the time of the fourth AfD and focus on OKCupid and/or other online dating options. I checked them all. Most are also repeating one another; so they are not providing anything new, which means that even the "in the the media" coverage is limited. So, coverage-wise, not much has changed since that fourth AfD. That could change with the existence of this Wikipedia article, which could make publications think that they should cover the topic since Wikipedia does. In other words, this article is promotional. The current version was a lot of puff until cuts by Drmies and Crossroads1, but especially cuts by Drmies. To repeat, WP:No page is clear that not every notable topic needs its own Wikipedia article. For example, in the case of gender identity, we've merged terms/identites to Non-binary gender#Definitions and identity because those terms/identities don't need their own Wikipedia articles, there is some overlap with one or more of them (such as trigender), and it's better to send readers to that section to learn about the terms/concepts than to have them go to stubs or very small articles just for that material. Merging/redirection was the consensus for sapiosexuality in the fourth AfD, and merging/redirecting would likely be the consensus if I started a merge discussion for it this time.
Crossroads1, regarding this, I do think that the "it is a neologism" aspect should be in the lead. But per WP:Refers and WP:ISAWORDFOR, it shouldn't be in the first sentence since this article is not just about the term.
As for the student who created the article, I pointed to that student above in this section. And, Chris Troutman, I liked your "trying to make fetch happen" reference. Yes, to me, creation of this article is just promotional. In reality, the term simply does not have that much traction. Like I stated, "It ceased getting a lot of attention back in 2015 and 2016, although it still gets some attention today." Having looked at the sources below, it also got enough attention in 2017, the same year I nominated it for AfD. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should be merged to any of our scientific/psychology articles like sexual attraction. It would be even more promotional there, leading readers to think this is actually the term for attraction to intelligence (of course, intelligence is attractive to pretty much everyone at some level). It would be undue at any of them. I don't care if it gets merged to OKCupid. I agree with you that the article will always be just a bunch of "in the media" pieces. I'll fix the lead per the guidelines you showed me. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, to meet WP:REFERS, the opening sentence would say Sapiosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction to the intelligence of another individual. But that is not correct, as the reverse is not true: Romantic or sexual attraction to the intelligence of another individual is sapiosexuality.☒N Nearly all people and nearly all RS do not have any word, let alone this one, for that concept. To say this is that term would be promotional. I think the current opening sentence may be okay because the article is about the word as a word, and not about sexual attraction to intelligence. But I am definitely open to ideas on this. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that we should devote a lot to the topic under the name "Sapiosexuality" at the Sexual attraction article. I'm saying that sexual attraction to intelligence should be covered at the Sexual attraction article, and that sapiosexuality should be briefly mentioned there. We don't need a Sapiosexuality article. Having this article will likely increase usage of the term "sapiosexual." It's stronger as a standalone article coming up in search engines. And I've seen Wikipedia be powerful in promoting terms before.
As for WP:Refers and WP:ISAWORDFOR, the article isn't about the word. Even when the article was titled Sapiosexual, it wasn't about the word. It's about an identity and the coverage its gotten. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't remember the name of the student offhand, but I remember warning them about the sourcing and that the article had been repeatedly deleted at AfD. She wanted to try to create the article, so I let her know that this would be a tricky process and that AfC would be one of the better options here. My thought process here was that if she submitted the article, the prior AfDs would be taken into consideration. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shalor (Wiki Ed), above, I linked to this discussion and pinged Emiller202. Emiller202 is the editor you were referring to. Thanks for having helped on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More reliable secondary sources[edit]

That help support the fact this article should exist. All of these sources are reliable and secondary and have not been cited in the article yet.

And I guess it's cool enough for celebrities and politicians to come "out" as sapiosexual, like Jeannie Mai, Sami Lukis, Aubrey O'Day, and Marlène Schiappa...

...and this guy.

Missvain (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sapiosexuality&oldid=1183717356"