Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Category - sex and sexuality templates

I just created Category:Sex and sexuality templates - trying to gather up a bunch of navigation templates relating to sex. I added most of the templates I know of, but thought I would mention it in case there are other templates that should go in the category. Zodon (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Virgo

I've just launched Wikipedia:WikiProject Virgo, an effort to replace unexpected images containing nudity with more suitable ones. Unexpected is used here to mean "One would not under normal circumstances expect to see nudity on this page". I'm wondering if it's okay if I mark WikiProject Sexology and sexuality as a parent project. Also, anyone who would like to help is welcome. Thanks. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this project will produce considerable opposition from other editors. In fact I'm not at all sure it's not a troll. To quote from it's current guidelines Sometimes the original image will seem to be the best choice, such as in the case of a statue of a Greek goddess. In this case, cropping the image may be an option. A shoulders-up bust style crop is usually sufficient. The Wikipedia is not censored: this looks like a statement of intent to vandalize. --Simon Speed (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are not by definition set in stone, so to speak. I do understand your concern, and I am willing to work with others to make this better fit the goals of Wikipedia. Topics such as Andromeda or Satyr would be out of Virgo's scope, since certain elements of these characters are impossible to represent otherwise.

While we may prefer a Wikipedia that is not censored, we do censor it of other irrelevant information, such as facts no one cares about. Having said this, I don't think it's a problem to rework articles for a larger audience by replacing images.

Cropping is bad practice, I agree, but there is an art to doing it properly. I hadn't thought of this earlier, but many images are likely ineligible for cropping by their individual licenses.

Thoughts? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, don't quite grasp what the purpose or intent of "Project Virgo" is. "Identify and replace (not delete) inappropriate images featuring nudity or partial nudity where it is not expected or not necessary." To me that reads like an open-ended invitation (and flimsy excuse) for vandalism. There is a segment of the population that does not "expect" to see nudity in any article. Even if they do a wiki search for public nudity they are shocked and dismayed that the article contains actual examples of public nudity.

I simply feel that Project Virgo is not necessary. Wikipedia articles revolve around the concept of consensus based editing. So if there is a nude (or partially nude) image associated with an article, that would infer that a consensus feels that it is appropriate. In other words "expected". If someone were to add a nude image to an article about say a Disney character or the like, then editors would quickly remove it.

I trust that your individual intentions are noble and honest, but I worry about the unintended consequences of this project.--SeedFeeder (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for trusting me, I was slightly insulted by the first claim that I was trolling, having been an honest editor and have reverted vandalism for some time now. (I am proud to say I haven't received any warnings.)

My hopes are that this project will not turn disastrous, as you have described. That is certainly not my intent. I would like to do my best in laying out my idea as follows:

Consider this first type of situation: (I don't have a working example at the moment, but similar examples have and will most likely happen): Your child uses Wikipedia to look things up, whether for school or for fun. Perhaps he or she looks up a topic such as "Amazon.com" and finds a photo of a nude man using the service, as an illustration of a point that one can now shop naked. No, this is not currently the state of the article, and hopefully has not been, but I'm simply giving an example.

::Consider this second type of situation, perhaps more controversial than the first, and this time, I will use an example I stumbled across the other day: Your child is interested in fantasy creatures and the like, and looks up "Mermaid". The illustration at the top of this article displays bare breasts (realistic, I might add). The problem is not so much that they are bare (I don't think many people have a problem with bare-breasted animals) as that they are meant to resemble that of a human and are bare. There is nothing that says a mermaid must have bare breasts, in fact, most mermaids published in children's books have some sort of bra or seashells or the like. Now should an alternative image be found which covers the breasts modestly (not just with hair or by facing the opposite direction), this image would be more suitable for the article.

This is the purpose of Virgo. I hope it is understood now.

Let me know your thoughts, Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to make clear that in general, anatomical articles, sexuality/sexology articles, medical articles, disease/fungus/bacteria articles, and certain entities with certain imminent traits are not within Virgo's scope, and I have made this clear on the project's page. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone has pointed out that mermaids are consistently historically portrayed this way, so this article has been de-flagged. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No Bob, I still don't get it. And to be frank, you're mermaid example is a prime reason I have misgivings about a project of this nature. No matter how you justify it to yourself, Project Virgo amounts to censorship. I have the perception that mermaids have been historically depicted as being bare breasted. So, were I to venture to the mermaid page I would expect to see a topless mermaid or two. And going to that page, it would appear that the editors' consensus also share my expectations. Yet somehow you did not expect to see any nudity. What if I were to create "Project Eros" and set out adding nudity to every article that I expected to find it? That'd be called vandalism. Again, images are subject to consensus based editing. I don't understand the purpose of a project whose sole purpose is to go around attempting to override the consensus of the editors who have dedicated their time maintaining an article.--SeedFeeder (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't strike through that paragraph for no reason at all. I retracted that statement several hours ago, because you and others have convinced me that articles of that nature cannot be illustrated accurately in any other way. No sense in continuing to argue on that part. And in my "humble" opinion, an anti-censoring policy will be Wikipedia's demise, as it gradually becomes more and more risque.

You have not responded yet to my first example. I believe this is an entirely different type of scenario, and there are other types as well which, for the sake of keeping this discussion brief and not driving it into the ground, will not mention. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This project is being abandoned and deleted. Post any further questions on my talk page. Thank you. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Help requested for categorization of Feminine essence theory of transsexuality

I have created a new page, Feminine essence theory of transsexuality. However, it is the first new page I have created, and I am not sure how to go about caterogizing it. Any feedback on the page and suggestions for categories would be greatly appreciated. — James Cantor (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also encourage the members of this project to look at that article carefully and respond to the RfC on the talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Unconflicted editors needed

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#user:Dicklyon.2C_user:Jokestress.2C_and_user:James_Cantor_at_The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen_and_related_pages. If we had more people from this project involved, people without WP:COIs, we could probably get the conflicted people to settle down and stop making a mess of these articles. Please feel free to join in and help find a middle ground. It doesn't look like the ArbCom request is going to be accepted, so we need more community involvement to work things out. Dicklyon (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding article classification and importance

I am new to this project and was wondering what editors are responsible for categorizing (A-Class, B-Class, etc) and assigning importance (Top, High, etc) to articles? While skimming through articles it struck me as odd that Prostitution in Europe is of "Top" importance to this project, yet prostitution occurring just about anywhere else in the world is only of "Mid" level importance. So what makes the prostitution that's going down in Europe so important? More important than the subject of prostitution as a whole which is rated of "High" importance. Confused. ---SeedFeeder (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that anyone may change those ratings; they are discussed and decided upon by consensus on the talk page. — James Cantor (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. I think I have it figured out now. --SeedFeeder (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Categorization help requested again, this time for Courtship disorder

I have created a new page, Courtship disorder. Any feedback on the page and suggestions for categories would be greatly appreciated. While I'm on the topic of the paraphilias, I've noticed that the paraphilia list that appears on some pages links to, but does not match, the contents of List of paraphilias. How or where is the bottom-of-the-page list maintained? — James Cantor (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is maintained by any editor. In the top left corner of the bottom-of-the-page box there are 3 little letters "v d e". Click on them to view this template, edit the discussion on the template and edit the template itself. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Great; thank you. I wondered what those letters were for. — James Cantor (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Virgo

I have completely redesigned my proposal for Virgo. Anyone interested in reviewing/critiquing may find the proposal here, the code-under-development here, and the page for the project-under-development here. The add-on is still being coded, which is why it has zero features at the moment and does not do anything it is intended to do yet. (I'm still working on learning how to code in js, frankly). Your input is appreciated. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Child sexuality-- Historical sexual customs in French Polynesia

In Child sexuality, a "Cultural issues" or something along the line of history/culture (title changed) existed since the articles creation 13:21, 20 June 2003. Two editors have complitly deleted it claiming that the article is about chycological development only, but since 2003, there was a huge number of editors, they all accepted it, so this is bullshit, the problem, is that it implys that in the pacific sexual customs where very liberal, and the above editors are very prudish. This is the section in June 2008. You may whant to do something about it, because discussion, is simply imposible.

This was accepted as source for 3-4 years. An alternative is also here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.112.178.24 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread on the talkpage there to see what consensus is. -- Banjeboi 01:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not about prudishness, it's about unreliable sources, original research, and undue weight. The fact that the material hung around for years does not indicate consensus, it only indicates that it did not receive attention.

The IP editor's comment about lack of discussion is inaccurate. There has been discussion on this, and there was recently RFC where 4 or 5 editors opposed and not one other editor supported the IP's position. That's why the material stayed deleted after the IP's repeated re-adding of it; a decision based on consensus. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More eyes on template discussion please

Hi, we need a return visit to Template:Sexual orientation. As templates are a bit more visible of a group of articles wider community input is helpful. There is disagreement on whether or not Perceived sexual orientation is a good candidate for inclusion. Relevant discussion here. -- Banjeboi 01:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Input needed for List of paraphilias

There is a disagreement about the better way to format the List of paraphilias page, these being the two formats:

• Original and New. (Edit: and New new). -Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 09:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC))]

We could use input on the list’s talk page here. — James Cantor (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

New article

Absexual, just created it, I don't have experience creating articles so I am wondering if anyone has any advice (or wants to help) expand it. Tyciol (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Lesbian peer review sought

Lesbian has been completely rewritten and is now looking for peer review. All help appreciated. -- Banjeboi 10:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

External links on the Paraphilic infantilism article

Hello, I don't belong to this Wikiproject and I usually don't edit articles dealing with sexuality, instead I go through articles all over Wikipedia and do cleanup work as per Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm posting here about a run-in I had on the Paraphilic infantilism page over two links which are advocacy links for the paraphilia. I removed them as they weren't of a neutral point of view. The only purpose of the links was to "educate" (in the biased sense) people over why the paraphilia must be accepted. I didn't think such links were proper as per our external link guidelines. I looked at the homosexuality article, which I'm sure is highly scrutinized, and I found no advocacy links in the external links section at all. I'm facing resistance from a few editors that describe the website as "not about advocacy but about understanding and comprehension", and then later admit that they do advocate a position. The links in question are http://understanding.infantilism.org and http://www.infantilism.org. I apologize in advance if this is the wrong forum for links discussion. I'm trying to get an external links noticeboard set up at the Village pump, but until something like that happens I have to take my concerns around until I find an audience. Anyway, someone please look over the links in this article and also the behaviour of those defending them and see if this is acceptable. Thanks, Themfromspace (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I recommend asking at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. They do seem to be borderline as our policy is that a link should add to the article's content if the article was at a FA level. Not sure if these do meet that but they might. -- Banjeboi 03:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I already asked there about this link but they said it was not the right forum as the links weren't being used as references, which is why I came here. It's really a shame that there's no place to discuss links like this, I might have to post an RfC. Themfromspace (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Take it to WP:AN. - I've struck out getting some clear guidance and unsure where to ask regarding whether some links are acceptable per WP:EL policy. Is there a proper venue for clarification and enforcement? I wouldn't site the homosexuality article as it's a mess. IMHO, if they are obviously biased they should go. -- Banjeboi 03:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To be brief, I'll just add links to the four other open discussions on this topic ( Themfromspace's talk page, Roguebfl's talk page, Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and The Village Pump) and point out that if the one person asserting that the link to understanding.infantilism.org gives "undue weight to minority views" was willing to detail what underrepresented majority view or plurality of underrepresented minority views he's concerned about, a compromise could probably be reached. Probably, that is. If any page that didn't recommend shock therapy or execution as a solution for paraphilia was considered advocacy, finding a mutually acceptable middle ground would be quite difficult. (Disclosure:[1][2][3])BitterGrey (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

To me the issue is what is the best venue to render an opinion on policy and if one doesn't exist should it. Being bounced around isn't helping. IMHO, EL's usually should be converted to RS instead but that's definitely case-by-case. These EL's might also be in the middling area of informative yet not notable enough to have their own article. If they are deleted they certainly could rest on the talkpage as resources to provide reasonable background for those working on the article. There is also open source links option which actually could be more of a help. Rather than picking the one or two "best" links this offers a handful or more and users decide what appeals to them most. I'm not sure we have a set rule or even a way to make a decision here. -- Banjeboi 09:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The possibility of having more than one link, as opposed to a keep/delete debate about a single link, is an option.( Discussion location #1). Of course, that brings us back to specifics about what viewpoint(s) that one person is asserting is underrepresented. What link would help? I couldn't help but notice that the homosexuality article (which he claims to have checked and consider a good standard)[4] included links intended to "foster acceptance" and was absent links to, for example, the Catholic Church's position about how homosexuality can be cured. I would like to think that we could figuratively sit down _somewhere_ and discuss what his specific (real) concern is. The progression of new locations makes it look like the other person will keep bringing the topic up in new locations until he finds support for his side. Of course, by now he knows I'm watching his changelog, and plan to join discussion #6 too. (The changelog is how I found out about location #2, #3, #4, and here, #5.) BitterGrey (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would fully ignore the homosexuality article, it's a battleground and hardly representative of anything but what happens when people who don't like a subject inflict all manner of nonsense against it's improvement. Lesbian is a much better example. It is written at a near FA level and has one open source EL. IMHO, this is the model to aim for and in the spirit of policy. In general i don't delete links as much as convert to references or remove to the talkpage for future use. -- Banjeboi 14:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, DMOZ. I was wondering what you were referring to by open source. Thanks for clarifying. BitterGrey (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[Outdenting] I have some off-wiki expertise in that topic, but I have no horse in the race. I've read the page and the EL, and find myself repeatedly coming to WP:LINKSTOAVOID, especially #11 (links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites).
I appreciate the prior discussions regarding what is biased or unduely weighted, but I think the central issue is really the above; the EL itself is not bad, but it's not what the EL's on WP are meant for, IMO.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Multi Merge discussion regarding gynephilia and androphilia

• A multiple merge discussion has been started to address the possible merger of usable material from:

• Transmen attracted to women
• Transmen attracted to men
• Transwomen attracted to women
• Transwomen attracted to men

into gynephilia and androphilia with any remaining material likely sent to transmen and transwomen. Discussion is taking place at Talk:Gynephilia and androphilia#Multi Merge discussion and your input is appreciated. -- Banjeboi 03:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

EL's on sexology pages.

Hi, folks. There appears to be a dispute brewing over an EL on intersexuality very similar to an EL dispute on paraphilic infantilism. Because many sexual-special-interest groups (or individuals) maintain websites about their interest, I believe that this kind of issue will be coming up again and again. It is my general view that the good information from such sites should be integrated into the WP pages (together with the RS's), but not be linked as an EL (unless the link is to an organization that is notable in its own right). I would be grateful for any input, either here or on the pages in question.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking content developed by others for their own website would be problematic. Using one or two concepts and references is research. Taking many concepts and references is plagiarism. This is doubly so, because it is being done with intent to remove any credit given to those who worked on the source website.

This tactic seems all the more divisive when those who frequently suggest doing it to the websites of others (e.g. [5][6]) don't do it themselves, instead opting to put in external links to their own websites (e.g. [7]). Those advocating this tactic need to start by practicing what they preach. BitterGrey (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Androphobia

At the moment, androphobia is a link to misandry. Surely androphobia, if it means anything, is simply the male-oriented equivalent of gynophobia, rather than the male-oriented equivalent of misogyny? It appears in all the compendium-of-phobias lists -- which means nothing -- but this seems to be just a plausible a condition as gynophobia. Unfortunately, I cannot find anything substantive from reliable sources to back this up yet (this is tantalizing, but goes nowhere), or I would just write the article. -- The Anome (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New article on burlesque exotic dancer

I am putting together a short article on a burlesque exotic dancer who doesn't already have a Wikipedia entry. I am working on this article on a sub page to my user page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ultramartin/Satan%27s_Angel). Now I feel I am ready to make it public. But to spare myself some frustrations and embarrassment, I figured I’d ask for some opinions first. Mufka suggested I should ask you guys. Can somebody read through it and tell me if it is an article worthy for Wikipedia? Ultramartin (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few manual of style changes but in general this seems fine. -- Banjeboi 03:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey at Talk:Autofellatio#Censorship

Hi. This project seems to be a good place to tell people that there is a survey running at the Autofellatio article regarding whether the top image should be placed in a toggle-box, defaulting to "hide". Opinions are welcome. I'm cross posting this message at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

reference desk request

There have been a few questions about sexuality and relationships recently, both on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. I have tried my best to help answer them. Some of them are from the sexually inexperienced. Some are answered in a joky way that I think future readers might find confusing or misleading, an issue I'm discussing on the help page there. Some are requests for technical information, e.g. statistics. All of them could benefit from the response of someone with expertise or qualifications in this field, as demonstrated by having good referenced sources to hand. I would welcome your input, if any of you wish to put those helpdesk pages on your watchlist. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Question for members of this project regarding Conversion therapy

I'm not a member of this project, however, I'd like to ask a question for those who are. Can the Conversion therapy article be made part of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality as well as WikiProject LGBT Studies? It clearly falls within the scope of both projects, and unless there's a reason why it can't go under both, I think it should (the article would benefit from wider attention). Does anyone know how to manage this?Born Gay (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

While I can't tell you whether this project considers the article in question to be within its scope, the process for tagging it is simple: Paste {{WP Sexuality}} on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I had no idea it was that easy. Born Gay (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek love deletion, renaming or merge proposal

The article Greek love was found to have multiple problems. A proposal to delete the article has been made.

Please take a moment to weigh in on this discussion here. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Andrea Dworkin

I have reassessed this article and found issues with the referencing which need to be addressed if the article is to retain GA status. The reassessment comments are at Talk:Andrea Dworkin/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:39, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

This is now in process. -- Banjeboi 04:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody home?

Can we get a rational and non-tendentious editor at Feminine essence theory of transsexuality, please?

The ideal editor(s) will have some passing familiarity with PMID 18431641 (free full text; it's long, but the relevant bit can be found by searching for "essence"), PMID 18431630 (first page free), and PMID 17951886 (I can e-mail the text to you), as well as being able to tell the difference between the idea that a transwoman is a "woman trapped in a man's body" being described in these 2007-2008 papers, and being made up in these papers.

Right now, we have an editor desperately seizing at any possible straw to prove that all of these authors, and all of the other authors that write about this idea, are all talking about completely different ideas, even though they use the same terms, apply the same popular phrase, and specifically and plainly refer to each other's publications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

To offer an outsider's perspective, it sounds like the conflict is rooted in two false dichotomies complicated by two parties with agendas. The first false dichotomy is that of male/female. People have masculine and feminine characteristics, but asserting that they (especially their souls) are simply one or the other will be problematic. The second false dichotomy is that something is either sexual or not sexual. As a result of these two, we now have GID and transvestic fetishism. Previously, we had transvestism and transexualism, with a range of possible expressions.

Complicating these, we have two parties with their own agendas. We have those who need to publish, to write, to profess for a living. To keep their jobs, they need to promote themselves and their definition of reality. While it might not be there intention, they are in effect telling others who those others are. The second party's agenda involves being who they believe they are, not who the first party tells them they are.

The wikipedia article will not escape reflecting this conflict. It can address it in the article by giving both sides of the argument voice, possibly in separate sections. This might be most productive. Personally, I side with the second group. However, I will stay out of the fray, and expect that those with a conflict of interest will do the the same. BitterGrey (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't think that you could possibly be any more biased than one of the current editors.

The problem is not the big picture (which you lucidly describe); it's things like "What did Blanchard mean when he said that some transwomen claim to be "literally" women?" and "Let's present Blanchard's description of the whole 'a woman trapped in a man's body' idea as a made-up and deliberately weakened concept carefully designed to give Blanchard an opportunity to ridicule transwomen, and as if it has no connection to the actual concept". Please: don't assume that your presence will make things worse, because it really can't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh - another messy convoluted article masking fringe theories as mainstream pilars of study - try throwing out everything from Blanchard, Bailey et al and see what's left - the rest likely would be edited down from 10,000 words to 1,000 and merged into the parent article. But this is just based on my experience with the prior dozen or so rounds of these articles. -- Banjeboi 04:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Input requested at paraphilia (...and Sexology, Etc...)

I recently added an EL at that page (http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/blog4.html), which is a reading list about paraphilias, that I wrote and use in clinical training. user:Jokestress, who has long pushed a negative POV regarding anything that comes out of my hospital, asserted that the EL was inappropriate. Any input from a neutral editor would be greatly appreciated. — James Cantor (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite that it would be obvious to some, I should probably add: Yes, upon adding the link to the mainpage, I indicated on the talkpage that I was the author of the reading list. Were we discussing a noncontroversial issue, few editors would contest that I am reasonably called an expert on the topic and that a link that I am the author of would meet the criteria of WP:EL. (I am a professional sex researcher and have published several articles on the topic in academic journals, including the chapter on the paraphilias in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology.) Because we are discussing a controversial topic, however, there is little to be gained by the inevitable yes-he-is/no-he's-not with activists who contest scientists with views that disconfirm their activist POV...hence my request to jump to the chase and ask for input from neutral editors.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll chime in. I think the rather strict line that our EL would reject this link. Many of those sources listed on your blog entry may be fine but they should be used NPOV as sources in the article itself as appropriate. I would say pretty much the same about most sources like this with teh exception being an article so lacking in sources that anything would be better than nothing. I would suggest simply copying the sourcing from the blog to the article talkpage stating these may be useful for this article. EL standard is that the link should provide information for our readers that greatly add to their understanding of the subject if the article was at a FA level. A good example is an article on a sportsteam linking to it's league list of statistics which drill into details the article likely never should and compares various teams stats. Your website ergo does not look to meet that level but some of those sources may help the article. -- Banjeboi 04:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You could copy any appropriate items from your blog (as they are references) to a new section for 'Bibliography' (or 'Further reading'); fewer than half of the sections on that page contain items that relate to the article. Mish (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request an apology from James Cantor to Jokestress: I'm the one who raised questions about this most recent link[8]. (Correction: Jokestress was mentioned while I was not, because Jokestress removed the link, while I only discussed it. I think ignoring those who are being civil isn't a very civil thing to do.)

Regarding the link, I believe that the link should not be restored. If we let one person put up a "buy my book" (or more literally, "buy our articles") link, to be fair, we would have to let everyone do it.BitterGrey (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed the list in the light of the preceding comment, I will amend my comment above - by appropriate references, items the editor has contributed to would be excluded (if somebody else includes them, that is a different matter); that still leaves some references that would compliment the article. Mish (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the EL was added to a plurality of articles, e.g: [9]. Perhaps the plurality of ELs slipped James Cantor's mind, just as the plurality of differing opinions did. One might wonder when the line is crossed between a forgetful researcher and a professional self-promoter gaming our system.BitterGrey (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well put, BitterGrey. User:James Cantor is a WP:SPA here to promote the controversial work of himself and his friends, and to denigrate their critics. He and his friends seek to expand the definition of "paraphilia" and to codify even more disorders involving sex and gender minorities. It's a huge WP:COI, and he has no business adding self-promotional external links to his own website, citing himself and his friends, and adding controversial definitions he helped write, given his disease model POV for so many sex and gender minorities. Jokestress (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

lol Well, that's one interpretation. The other is simpler: Social activists don't like when science contradicts their social agenda, and in order to use Wikipedia as a tool for social change, they need to suppress any dissenting evidence or unflattering research results. So, we have user:Jokestress (transsexual activist), user:MishMich (intersex activist), and user:Bittergrey (infantilism activist): each of whom publicly acknowledge their respective interests (which I genuinely respect), and each of whom want the world to be a better place for people who share their respective demographic (a goal with which I agree). And on ther other hand, we have user:James Cantor, a scientist who studies the relevant phenomena, publishing it in the traditional scholarly outlets for such information. It's a classic conflict.

In the present discussion, each of you is advocating breaking one or more WP policies (below). I do not pretend that any of you will ever come to believe that: The interpretation of those policies is made by consensus and, as Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two lions and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch." It would take a large amount of effort on my part to find a sufficient number of neutrals who are interested enough in correctly applying WP policies to establish a consensus comparatively free of activist agendas, and I do not feel the present point is important enough to do that.

For the record, however, the particular rules you are collectively violating are:

• Jokestress misapplies WP:COI. The information I add to WP in the EL's are entirely consistent with the goals of WP, regardless of whether I am the author of the articles. That is, there is no conflict between WP's interests and what one may perceive mine to be.
• The EL's I have added are entirely consistent with WP:EL. EL's to personal websites are entirely allowable when they come from someone who with expertise in the relevant area. Although an activist may disagree with me views or research, very few non-activists can say that I do not have such expertise.
• Jimbo himself as advocated for the increased, not decreased, involvement on WP of topic experts. In nothing that I have ever added to WP has my own work been represented out of proportion with how often my work on that topic appears in high-end RS's. I (and all other scientists) are entirely within their WP rights to include our own work, subject to the same constraints as all others.

All that said, a last word, Banjeboi?
— James Cantor (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's another interpretation: Pseudoscientists don't like when science, history, and philosophy contradict their pseudoscientific agenda, [10] and in order to use Wikipedia as a tool for pseudoscience, they need to suppress any dissenting evidence or unflattering research results.[11] Jokestress (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that somebody has good knowledge of, and interest in, a subject should not be held against them: it does not imply conflict of interest. And this "pseudoscientist" stuff is just name calling. (Please tone down your language Jokestress). On the other hand, on this particular issue, I completely agree with you: the link is to what is effectively an editor's personal blog. This, though it looks like a neutral reading list, is very selective and non-neutral POV in terms of ongoing scientific debates. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no reason to suspect that you have any bias, Simonxag, but I don't think it's fair exactly to assume, without evidence, that my list has one either. My colleagues and I are no better represented in my reading list than we are in the literature. For example, if you go to scholar.google.com and search on "pedophilia," you will get 5,650 articles...of those, I am the author of 3 of the top 10, and together with my colleagues, we wrote 5 of the top 10. When we are highly represented in the in the relevant literature, then a list that includes a high proportion of our own studies does not reflect bias; it accurately reflects the professional literature.
— James Cantor (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? James Cantor appears nowhere in the top ten Google Scholar list when I do a search. Jokestress (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't quite as straightforward as it appears, James, just to qualify this...

Selecting all articles:

• paedophilia. Cantor = 0/10 out of 8,170; (1 paper includes Freund and Blanchard at No.10) Key authors:- Howitt/Silverman/O'Carroll/Gaffney/Rooth
• pedophilia. Cantor = 0/10 out of 16,400; (4/10 papers include Freund*4 and Blanchard*1) Key authors:- Freund/Blanchard/Dickey/Kuban/Mohr
• paedophilia OR pedophilia. Cantor = 0/10 out of 15,600; (3/10 papers include Freund*3, Blanchard *1) Key authors:-Freund/Blanchard/Mohr/Jerry/Dickey

Selecting recent articles (since 2004)

• paedophilia. Cantor = 0/10 out of 2,910; Key authors:- Rush/Frei/La Nauze/Cross/Erenay
• pedophilia. Cantor = 2/10 (as author or co-author) out of 5,650; Key authors:- Blanchard/Cantor/Briken/Seto/Blak
• paedophilia OR pedophilia. Cantor = 3/10 (as author or co-author) out of 5,130; Key authors:-Cantor/Blanchard/Seto/Blak/Klassen

So, you seem to rank high in the USA in terms of papers since 2004, but not overall, and not in other English speaking countries (as in the last item, all your papers feature the US spelling).

However, I'm not disputing that it is legitimate for somebody to cite your work in an article on paedophilia; the weight accorded would need to be tempered by the need to reflect the international and historical context. Mish (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are being a bit unfair, James. The article in question is not one I am particularly interested in, and had not visited before today, but you requested comments here and I obliged by giving my view on this. The link in question is to a reference list for studies compiled by you, of which less than half the sections apply to the article, and some of which you have authored or co-authored. I said that I thought you would be better adding the relevant references into a section for bibliography, but when I was made aware in the discussion that you had co-authored some of these, I advised that it would be better if you refrained from including that material, which would still leave those written by others. I also said that I could see no problem with somebody else adding sources which you had contributed to. What I suggested would have improved the article and thereby the encyclopedia, and left room for somebody to add other references if they wished - that would not be the same as a link to your list of suggested papers, which other editors would not be in a position to improve upon. Had the link pointed to something specific you had written which related to the article, then that would have elicited a different response, but you pointed to a list of papers. I am not going to get into a slagging match - I think my response to you was both fair and reasonable. So what if I am an activist? (I'm pretty inactive, TBH) My concern with human rights extends beyond one demographic group, and my interest in this encyclopedia is wider than intersex or articles you happen to be involved in. I am also an Anglican, an academic, and I use linux, and these are about as relevant to an article on paraphilia, so I am a neutral voice in this respect; if you ask the question on a page I watch, don't be surprised if I respond to your question. I have not questioned your motives, I simply advised caution, and looking at the way your question has been received, I can see that this was good advice. FYI, there are no rules to break here, there are policies that are implemented, and guidelines that can be followed, and I am unclear I have violated either of these in responding to a question you asked on a subject I have no interest in (and which is not relevant to any 'social agenda' I am aware of) beyond being a member of this project and a contributor mainly to the LGBT studies and Anglicanism projects. Mish (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

James Cantor, please stop name-calling anyone who disagrees with you. Everyone who endures Wikipedia does so for their own reasons. However, unlike you, we've stopped short of editing ourselves into positions of notability[12]. Is your self-promotion for money and fame somehow more noble than our non-profit attempts to ensure the availability and accuracy of information? I think not.BitterGrey (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Note discussion elsewhere: [13]BitterGrey (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm no medic, but I have had some contact with the academic world. If a scientist is publishing important work, their point of view will (almost by definition) be controversial. Courses taught by that person will very much reflect their POV and so reading lists will reflect it too. This will seem so natural and normal to the academic that they will often fail to realize that it is happening. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

break

About the Google search: Cantor apparently has the "recent articles" setting ticked; other editors are looking at a much larger (and, IMO, much less relevant for the question at hand) group of articles. With the recent articles limit, I see 5,650 total articles, with Cantor's name listed in the first 10. The bottom of the page says, "Key authors: R Blanchard - J Cantor - P Briken - M Seto - T Blak".

The only name-calling I see here is Jokestress' "pseudoscientists", which is inappropriate. Last I checked, "activist" (the term Cantor applied to other editors) was a term of honor, not disparagement.

BitterGrey, a simple linksearch shows that Cantor's proposed link is currently nowhere in the main space.

Mish, you may be interested in knowing that Cantor is in Canada, so claims of a USA-centric worldview are probably off-base. I have no doubt that Cantor would meet the minimum requirements of WP:ELNO#EL11 for expert status. Also, there's no rule that prohibits Cantor from citing his own papers, so long it serves our purposes. We're concerned about abuse of conflicts of interest, not the mere existence of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I should have said North America, and must apologise to James and any Canadians for that, although my point was about the way the word is spelled, not a USA-centric worldview. The figures show clearly that when it comes to 'pedophilia' Cantor ranks among the highest in North America - but this is not the case with 'paedophilia'. So, as I said (re USA), that does not diminish his standing in North America, as he clearly is highly ranked in this respect. But, the question was not whether he could cite his own papers, but a list of papers on his blog. My suggestion was that he place the references in a section for bibliography. My own view was that he would be better leaving his own papers out, then others could supplement this list, including his papers if they wish; that would be the prudent thing to do, especially if others find this objectionable. If it is acceptable for him to include his own papers, then so be it. To substitute this course reading list as an external link instead of a bibliography would be inappropriate, because other editors have no control on what is on that list, and it is a list that is not confined to the issues in the article. That is why I suggested relevant references be placed in the article itself.

I have looked at the list in more detail, and there is only one item by Cantor that is relevant (on paedophilia).

• Overview - 2 (irrelevant)
• Pedophilia and Hebephilia - 7 - 1 by Cantor
• Rape - 4 (irrelevant)
• S&M - 3 - 0 by Cantor
• Courtship Disorders - 3 - 0 by Cantor
• Fetishism - 3 - 0 by Cantor
• Transvestism and Gender Identity Disorders - 3 - 3 by Blanchard
• Misc Paraphilias - 3 - 0 by Cantor
• Sexual Orientation - 5 (irrelevant)
• Pallometric Testing - 3 (irrelevant)
• Sex Offender Treatment - 4 (irrelevant)

18 irrelevant, 19 relevant, out of 39. Leaving 3 for transvestism and GID, which is problematic because it only cites one author. Blanchard is not the only expert to have written on transvestism, and locating it with GIDs in the way he does in a particular way is still controversial and not a consensus view. Ignoring the 2 Cantor refs among the irrelevant items, this only leaves Cantor as one out of seven papers on paedophilia. That seems pretty fair, actually - so I'd support his inclusion of those papers in the bibliography. Not the Transvestism/GID stuff though, as that is unashamedly biased towards one author. I can't really comment on the others, but if the bias featured in the problematic sub-topic list persists throught all the other relevant references, then the same point would apply. However, if they are not marginal perspectives, and leave the article lacking balance, then this might prompt others to add balancing sources, which would improve the article. So, including some of this material could well act as a catalyst.

So, yeah - if James wants to stick these refs in: Pedophilia and Hebephilia (including Cantor), S&M, Courtship Disorders, Fetishism, Misc. Paraphilias - I'll go along with that. It would be nice to see some development of discussion about findings on temporal lobe damage and paraphilia in the article as well. Mish (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The overarching problem here (as with everything James Cantor and friends do involving sex and gender minorities) is what constitutes a "disorder" or "disease." Wikipedia policy is to present information in a value-neutral manner. As such, articles and external links should give the full range of reliably-sourced viewpoints on a topic, with due weight. The rapid expansion of "paraphilias" mirrors the rapid expansion of "mental illness," and the belief that these traits or behaviors are disorders is not universal. James Cantor works at a controversial clinic that has been widely known for over 40 years as the epicenter of the medicalization of sex and gender minorities (reparative therapy of gender-variant children, etc.).

Often in cases like this, Wikipedia delineates which viewpoint each EL holds, organizing or annotating them to help lay readers make sense of the range of views. I propose that we do the same here. If there are academic articles which are available online for free, cite them inline with the URL or in a further reading section. If there are external links of a general nature, we can group them by type. Jokestress (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Before we go too far into the discussion about where citing ones self would be acceptable or not, do we have a consensus that the external links were not in line with Wikipedia's policies and should not be replaced?BitterGrey (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Getting useful info requires registration [14]. Link is to his own site and list is biased towards poster and colleagues [15].BitterGrey (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I still say No to this link - yes to some of the content of the link - and yes to a different link. Let's be clear. We are talking about one external link, to a page that gives a brief bibliography? I do not support that page's inclusion as a link. I would support some of the content being included as part of a bibliography, including the relevant paper by Cantor. I would also support some link to a relevant piece authored by Cantor on the topic, provided it is presented in accordance with policy on neutrality.

COI was declared, and you are right that the papers contained are not available generally. That is more bound up with their being primary sources, and we often include links to books or papers that are not online in a further reading section. Primary sources have their own problems, namely interpretation, and that is why it is suggested we are advised to use secondary sources where possible; however, nothing is being said about those sources, they are being presented as a list of references. There is a COI issue at play here, and it is suggested that the editor who raised the question and has been open about this has one POV, while other editors have a contrary POV, and that the item represents an uncritical list in favour of the the inserting editor's POV. This could be managed were the relevant content included as further reading, but not by insertion as EL. I would like to propose another way of approaching this. Seeing how the editor has contributed in the field, he could insert a link which is actually informative, either at the end, in a way that makes it clear it represents one POV, or within the text in support of a comment he makes within the article. Looking through, this site is less a blog than an academic's university pages, and there is material there that could be cited, which has also been published, and that could be used to link to. I would have thought that this page could be used in that way:[16], and if some people have a problem with that because they don't like the POV it contains, then they deal with that in the appropriate way, by finding material that can be cited and which works to neutralise and balance this. Even though I may not agree with this editor on some points, I honestly do not think he should be prevented from referencing his own contributions in this area. The process of pathologising certain behaviours is not new to Cantor and his colleagues, it goes back at least as far as Krafft-Ebing, and Cantor himself discusses how it is pointless to construct new taxonomies when the existing ones work perfectly well (as they can be classed under NOS then decribed), the issue (for some) is less about the way that process happens, but that the process happens at all. That is not a problem, that discussion exists in places such as here: [17], and should itself be cited from reliable sources and included. There are issues about the way some material being inserted connected with this group of sexologists is being handled, because it pervades a number of articles, some of which by being created lend their theories more credibility they are generally taken to have - but I'm not sure this applies in this case. Mish (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd happily support any of Mish's suggestions/solutions. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Bittergrey, Mish, and Simon. The self-promotional external link should not be replaced, and any citations should be added to the article. Jokestress (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress, I think you should read what Mish said. The link is not described as "self promotional"! If you try to work with editors having opposing POVs such as Cantor you can produce articles with a NPOV. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon, I did not attribute those words to Mish. I am describing the EL as self-promotional and a conflict of interest, and I have previously laid out my reasons why. At any rate, I believe we are all in agreement so far in terms of outcome regarding the EL. Jokestress (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

3ELs to the same website at the Sexology article

The discussion at Sexology regarding 3 EL's to the same website has already degenerated to include personal attacks against the one who found and announced the poster's involvement with that website. Additional, non-conflicted input would be appreciated. BitterGrey (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A more specific RfC filed at paraphilic infantilism

A more specific RfC has been posed here. Input on that talk page there would be appreciated.— James Cantor ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 20:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it specified a different forum: Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology[18]. Please let this RFC run it's course without extraneous posts that might look like votestacking. I do find it odd that you would do this so soon after falsely accusing me of making extraneous posts [19]. While we are on the subject, would you mind adding diffs now to support any true accusations, and retracting all the other ones? Falsely accusing fellow wikipedians is uncivil.BitterGrey (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Edit warring on paraphilic infantilism article

Given that I opposed the last five self-promotional EL's that James Cantor added to two articles over the past two weeks[20][21][22], an attack against an article that I've contributed text and references to isn't surprising. Yesterday, he engaged in an edit war to delete sections of the paraphilic infantilism article, most of which have been in place for over three years. To try to force his way, he violated 3RR - [23][24][25][26]. Ironically, he posted a 3RR warning against me just before violating the policy himself[27].

Furthermore, he himself argued that coincidence is evidence of ill will. Specifically, he argued that my RFC on the sexology article's talk page[28] was "clearly and simply a personal attack in retaliation"[29]. I posted that RFC in response to James Cantor's edits to actions at the Sexology article, on the same day as those edits[30]. I have yet to receive his explanation about why he was so desperate to delete those old sections of the paraphilic infantilism article. The coincidence suggests a relationship between recent events and his urgent deletion. His actions have all the signs of, to use his own words, a personal attack in retaliation for my efforts.

Any ideas? BitterGrey (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3 is the place to report edit warring. Please remember for the future that WP:3RR does not give you the right to revert material three times. Both of you could have been legitimately blocked for your role in that needless edit war.

Cantor is within basic policy to demand the production of sources or the removal of the unsourced text: the WP:BURDEN is always on those that want to include information. But this fact alone does not justify the edit war, and I hope that such actions won't be repeated by either of you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is correct on both points. I suggest the two users take a break from editing that page directly, or at least any part of the page that is in conflict. The issue can be addressed on the talk page. Since this is a two-user edit-war and not a violation report, per WP:TALK, I've modified the heading of this section to make it more neutral.

Regarding the deleted section, it appears to have no sources and to have been tagged as unsourced for two years. That's plenty of time to find references - the text should not be re-added unless sources are included. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding taking a break, unless I'm willing to match James Cantor's violation of 3RR, there isn't much that I can do. The one willing to violate wikipedia policy gets to determine content. BitterGrey (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As Jack-A-Roe says, the section has been tagged as lacking sources for two years, it is more than a reasonable time to expect sources to be added. Add reliable sources and text that accurately reflects them, then the material can be re-added. Mish (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That section was only the start. Now other sections and references are being deleted. BitterGrey (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources that were deleted from the page are not reliable and can't be used. If anyone does not agree about that, they are welcome to discuss the specifics on the talk page, and let's find out what the consensus is about those sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment.

Most of our pages on paraphilias rely on poorly documented material, based upon a general understanding of the matter by those who are knowledgeable, or curious, or, sometimes, involved--with heavy reliance upon the available websites. This can be expected to give an impression of greater uniformity and consensus than exists in either imagination or practice. People boast and exaggerate, they look for supporters and disciples, they tease audiences, they confuse fiction with reality--as in other aspects of life. Contrarywise, it is also common to try to defeat an opponent--or engage in denial for one's own reasons -- by asking for solid evidence where there is inherently only weak evidence. In any one instance, people might be a honest reporter of those they know in their own community; again, they might not be. Scientists and others who think they can reliably tell the difference are not necessarily correct. If we avoid reporting what people say about their activities in favor of reporting only what is known about their activities, we can not report on many aspects of life.

WP:V and WP:RS are powerful tools for accurate presentation, but can also be powerful tools to prevent it. The evidence such as it is must be given, and the strength of it clarified. It is well to avoid pronouncements, and what we often deprecate here as weasel words cannot always be avoided. Possibly one could write that "many of those who are say they are engaged in X report on their websites that ..." Letting the reader judge is our principle. DGG (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging Anal beads and Ben Wa balls

I want to merge these articles into a more general "beads" article but I'm not sure about what name to use, was thinking Sexual beads. Does anybody have any suggestions or preferences? Biofase ^flame| stalk  22:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving them as they are. The two things are used in completely different ways, the beads/balls are typically considerably different in size, Ben Wa balls are often not connected by a string (which would be dangerous in an anal toy), and any superficial resemblance should not lead to them being confused. -- Karada (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That was my take on it as well but the articles confuse the two and in practice it seems they may often be used interchangably. They will both need a rewrite in their current form. Biofase ^flame| stalk  15:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sexual identity

I have opened up a discussion about a series of edits that have resulted in splitting Sexual identity in a way that leaves 'sex identity' as 'sexual identity' and moving 'sexual identity' in relation to sexual orientation to the recently created Sexual orientation identity here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Sexual identity. As this issue relates to a number of articles and templates, it would be wise to discuss such a sweeping change which runs contrary to common usage in sources discussed before further changes - and I have reverted the latest edits in this vein. Such a discussion could take place here or on the LGBT project, but it seems best it is discussed in one place, and not on one article (because of the wider implications for other articles). Mish (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit that deleted the material relating to sexual orientation from 'sexual identity', and provided evidence of the frequency of usage of terms from Google Scholar searches on the talk page of the article:

Talk:Sexual identity#Sexual orientation identity and gender identity

Mish (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As the discussion is taking place at Talk:Sexual identity#Sexual orientation identity and gender identity. I think all contributions should be made there. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My mistake - it seems to be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Sexual identity. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Prostate massage

This article is sorely lacking in sexual information and is largely a medical article on why prostate massage doesn't work for prostatitis treatment. If anyone has any reliable material, please add it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Grading Scheme

I'm replacing our Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/Assessment#Quality_scale with {{Grading scheme}} for the time being. The Grading scheme is occasionally updated and has a rating "C-class" that we don't have on our scale, though we do have one "C" rated article and will have two in a minute (see above). Also the Grading scheme template is the "official" Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team version.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, we had something called "Needed-Class" but that makes no sense, it's either at stub or higher or it doesn't exist so there is no place to tag it as "needed".--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the grading scheme up to date. It's good to see editors being bold and improving the project & articles. --Simon Speed (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Sex fetish and Template:Paraphilia

These two templates seem like they ought to cover the same thing. Some linked paraphilias don't contain Template:Paraphilia, but do have Template:Sex fetish. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Fetish fashion

Editing assistance requested for this article. It was reduced to a microstub for containing original research; the editor is quite correct that the article is desperately in need of trimming the original research and adding reliable sources, but I don't think that reduces the article to a single sentence is the right approach. Fences&Windows 01:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

This article, which has been placed within this project, has several ongoing disputes. Comment from editors involved with the project would be helpful. Born Gay (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an open RfC that has seen little response. There have been multiple edits, revisions, reversals and deletions by several editors over a number of days, and I issued an edit-war warring. There has been increased use of the talk page, but the pattern is that discussion reverts backs to multiple edits. I requested page protection, which was declined, suggesting mediation would be a better route. If the way this article is being dealt with does not change I will be requesting meditation. Born Gay and I have been involved in editing for some time, and while we have intense disagreements I support him in this. This recent round of edits appears to entail a particular POV, and the new editors appeared within a few days of each other, all supporting the initiating editors' initial edit as well as making their own edits. Several sections were being edited by different editors in controversial ways at once. Mish (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia guideline that condemns implying a conspiracy? I think there ought to be. Hyper3 (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is implying a conspiracy here. The recent pattern of editing there may possibly look a bit suspicious, but there was no allegation of wrong-doing in Mish's comment. Born Gay (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm acting suspiciously now?Hyper3 (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I reported what happened, if you think that your behaviour looks suspicious, then own it. People here are not daft, when a group of editors appear on a page and start disrupting it, it is pretty obvious what is going on. Mish (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I met all of you on these pages, and have never had any contact before. If you and BG, weren't around, JJ, Knulclunk and Bluejay and I would probably have nothing in common. I think a low commitment to act collaboratively has ended provoking a few people to push harder (as family therapists would observe). Looks like you're wrong BG! I was actually just poking fun, not really thinking you meant it... But I'm sure we can still amicably continue our rivalries none the less. Unless anybody wants to co-operate? Hyper3 (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion is descending into NPA violations, and "continuing rivalries", whether amicably or not, has no place on an encyclopedia. This is not USENET. I have been more successful than Mish in my request for page protection: if people don't utilize the time granted by working together to improve the article, and stop this senseless name calling and suspicion-venting, then I will certainly request an extension of that protection. I strongly advise you all to focus on the content, not the contributors. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Having originally requested page protection, I fully support this for as long as it takes to motivate discussion in sorting out the edits that have recently taken place. Since the protection was imposed, over 24 hours ago, only myself and BornGay have contributed on the talk page. It would be helpful if other editors could engage in discussion too, while this brief window of opportunity is open to us. This is not the place to discuss, accuse, or air grievances, I fully agree, and apologise if my comment came across that way. I had intended to outline the situation, and my subsequent 'if the cap fits, wear it' type comment was uncalled for. Mish (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! It may be of interest to you that there has been a bit of a "break-out" session, if I may term it that, occurring on my talk page, so discussion has not ceased, but as the article talk page has been somewhat chaotic it seemed to make sense to address this one area of contention, which has reached the point of one of the parties applying for a MedCab mediation, out of the main area of fray. Discussion has been limited to the Jones/Yarhouse study, and is in sections User talk:KillerChihuahua#Jones/Yarhouse study and User talk:KillerChihuahua#Possible solution for conversion therapy. That discussion has been specifically with the parties involved; Hyper and Born Gay, I link here for transparency's sake. I will also be posting on the article talk page later summarizing that issue and hope we will have productive input from all interested parties. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Posted at Talk:Conversion_therapy#Jones/Yarhouse. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware all this was happening, but you appear to have things in hand, thanks (I can take a bit of a rest I guess, for now). One point, I did suggest mediation rather than edit-warring if editors could not resolve this, and I see that one person requested this. Is it normal for only two editors to be involved in such mediation, when five editors have been involved in the discussions and edits concerned? Mish (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I am am member of the Mediation Committee, not the Mediation cabal. MedCom is formal mediation, founded by Jimbo at the same time as ArbCom and with closed membership; MedCab is open-membership informal mediation. The request for mediation was filed with MedCab and has seen no action thus far. I do not know whether MedCab would accept this case. As written, it would be rejected by MedCom, which insists on both a clearly stated dispute and that all parties agree to mediation. I am hoping that my efforts will be effective, and further dispute resolution will not be necessary. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're wondering why it's written that way, check the edit history. BG 22:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Safe sex

Disputes have developed with the above article. On one side there is myself, Simon Speed and User:Zodon. On the other side is User:Nutriveg. From my point of view, Nutriveg has been removing well sourced material and adding verifiably false information. I think fresh editors looking at the article would help build consensus and take the article forward. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Any editor believing in the good faith of User:Nutriveg, should check the following edits they made to their talk page:- 2009-09-19 [31] 2009-04-20 [32] 2009-03-12 [33] 2008-12-14 [34] . --Simon Speed (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the article as needing expert help from the Reproductive medicine, Sexuality and AIDS projects. The use is overly contentious for something so unproblematic. The issue has now reached dispute over whether it is correct to start the lead of article called Safe sex with a WHO/UNAIDs (etc) policy definition for "Safer sex", rather than a dictionary (Oxford OECD) definition for "Safe sex", rendering the leads opening not reflective of the article or the title - and forcing a change in both the text and title to reflect this change to the lead. However, there is an even spread of both uses in academic, medical and research papers, including the more recent papers. The editor's approach is intensely time-consuming. Mish (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality rewrite

Is it about time to rewrite this article to conform to MOS and concentrate on accuracy, neutrality, comprehensiveness, and the best quality sources? Is it possible in an article of such controversy? I tend to hope a rewrite can be accomplished without the fuss of ArbCom, possibly as a model for Wikipedians working together from vastly different approaches.

I have been approached to rewrite the article by myself, but I do not wish to do that. I already wrote the Lesbian article and several other high-profile LGBT articles. I do not wish to write the core article on LGBT issues using my perceptions of what should be in this one. Wikipedia is a community effort, and there is no reason why this article cannot be constructed by many of us with the same goals in mind.

Please see Talk:Homosexuality#Rewrite_agenda. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Kanhopatra GA nomination in progress

The Kanhopatra GA nomination is being considered. Your thoughts are welcomed on the GA review page. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Spadone

Much of the material that would have been expected to be under the headword eunuch is now in an article called spadone. I had not previously heard of this term. Nor, apparently, have the New Oxford Dictionary of English, dictionary.com, the Cambridge Dictionary of American English, or (except as a back-reference to the Wikipedia article in question) in OneLook. The word does not, as far as I can tell, occur in the current mainstream medical literature, based on a search of abstracts of articles stored in PubMed.

As far as I can tell, the word "spadone" is being used in this article as a "more correct" term for a castrated or impotent man because it occurs in Latin literature. However, I can't find any references to support this. The term "spadone" appears to be almost universally translated into English as "eunuch": see, for example, this reference used within the article itself. So does this reference, also used to support the spadone article: [35]; indeed, in its own words, it translates spadones et steriles as "eunuchs and the sterile", rather undermining the distinction being made by the article.

See also the UND Latin lookup tool, Whitaker's Words, which lists it as one of three words cognate to the English word "eunuch" [36]. Perseus appears to concur. Lewis and Short make a distinction between spadon and castratus, but this does not seem to me to be enough on which to base the distinction between "eunuch" and "spadone" made by the authors of the article.

While I can't say I've made an exhastive search, none of the web-accessible references given in the article actually appear to use the term "spadone" as an English word, either in the sense given in the article or any other. (Furthermore, several of the references given in the article only point to top-level pages in sites, and not to the material they cite, so it's impossible to use them to confirm anything at all.)

Nor can I find any usage anywhere else. Given my failure to find such usages, I can only conclude that the term is at the least very rarely used, in either common or scholarly English, or in medicine. Without evidence to the contrary, this suggests to me that the distinction being made in splitting the "eunuch" material into a "eunuch" article and a "spadone" article may well constitute original research based on extrapolating from Latin usage to English.

I therefore propose that the material currently in spadone either be merged into the eunuch article, or moved to another title. -- The Anome (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've now read User:Newman Luke's references on their talk page. I don't think they show sufficient evidence for this term being common English usage, particularly when contrasted with the cites given above, taken from the article itself, that show "eunuch" to be the customary English translation of the Latine word spadone. Accordingly, I've reverted the recent article split of Eunuch into two articles, fixed by hand all the auto-disambiguation cruft created as a consequence of the split, and left a note asking him to discuss the matter here before making any more changes. -- The Anome (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made the right choice. Perhaps of interest to some readers, my Latin-English dictionary (ISBN 0198602839) gives "eunuch" as the sole tranlation of spado/spadonis, but gives eunuchus as the sole translation of the English word "eunuch". This doesn't prove that the meanings are actually different; they could be exact synonyms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Input needed at Shemale.

There is a discussion going on regarding the best way to achieve NPOV at the Shemale article. Because discussions on that and related topics have a long history of becoming the same points being made by the same people, input from more editors would be greatly beneficial to that article. Comments would be specifically appreciated regarding the content of these two ledes: [37] and [38]. The diff between them is: [39]
— James Cantor (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Redesign and reorganization

I just did a major overhaul of the design and organization of the WikiProject. This should help with the findability of information, and also make it easier to navigate between major sections of the project. Feel free to tweak or add to the new design!Clifflandis (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

help with Other World Kingdom

I unfortunately seem to be slipping into an edit war with several users (who I suspect are sockpuppets of a single individual) over Other World Kingdom, a BDSM resort. The user(s) in question keep replacing the entire article with an content about NASA, and so far the only rationale I've seen is that the article in question is pornographic. Perhaps someone from this project could help resolve the situation. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The article appears to have stabilized. I will keep it in my watchlist and shout out if I need more help. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that you can always request admin intervention against vandalism. Good luck! -- Clifflandis (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also watchlisted it. Interesting article, btw.— James Cantor (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages report

A popular pages report has been requested for the WikiProject. Clifflandis (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Greek Love rewrite

There is a proposed overhaul draft at the talkpage; could folks have a look and comment, etc. Any extra eyes would be appreciated. -- Banjeboi 01:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

More robust assessment

I've added the Class subpage to the {{WP Sexuality}} banner to allow for more robust assessment of the Project's pages. I'm still tweaking it, so it looks a bit off, but I'm trying to fix it (with the help of the Admins). -- Clifflandis (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion: Oral sex

Discussion is underway on Oral Sex concerning addition of some new pics. Please feel free to comment.(olive (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

Afd - child marriage

There is an AfD related to the subject area of this wikiproject - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child marriage in Judaism. Newman Luke (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex

The deletion of the above article is at deletion review

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 30

Newman Luke (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oddly it's been sent to userfication when seemingly it should have been overturned. I have moved it to incubation. -- Banjeboi 13:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now contested that action, see Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#A question about ignoring consensus in DRV itself. Newman Luke (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Image RfC at Women on top (sex position)

There's an RfC in progress regarding the appropriateness of an image at Talk:Woman on top (sex position)#Request for comment: Including a disputed image in this article. Feedback from interested parties welcome. --Muchness (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Asian fetish

This article could use some new eyes with expert knowledge/mediation/constructive input; I'm posting to several WikiProjects that seem relevant and to RfC. I have already done so on WP:Cleanup (other ideas just about where to seek help are also welcome). Article was created 06:51, 20 April 2004 by an IP. There's thirteen talk page archives and five Articles for Deletion discussions; there are 122 watchers and about 400 daily page views on average. Has never reached much of a consensus regarding the subject, content or sources AFAIK. Thanks! Шизомби (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)