Content deleted Content added
James Cantor (talk | contribs) →Androphilia and gynephilia: r to Kyle. |
James Cantor (talk | contribs) →Androphilia and gynephilia: r to Bonze |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
::[[Andromimetophilia]] and [[Gynemimetophilia]] are both redirected to [[Transfan]]. |
::[[Andromimetophilia]] and [[Gynemimetophilia]] are both redirected to [[Transfan]]. |
||
:Moreover, these articles address the overall context in which those terms have been used... as this one does. (Neither one of those articles is currently Wikilinked in [[Sexual orientation]], as this article is). -- [[User:Bonze blayk|bonze blayk]] ([[User talk:Bonze blayk|talk]]) 02:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
:Moreover, these articles address the overall context in which those terms have been used... as this one does. (Neither one of those articles is currently Wikilinked in [[Sexual orientation]], as this article is). -- [[User:Bonze blayk|bonze blayk]] ([[User talk:Bonze blayk|talk]]) 02:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
::*'''Comment'''. Although Bonze clearly did it unwittingly, Bonze is strongly ''agreeing'' with me. (!) As Bonze pointed out: [[Autoandrophilia]] and [[Autogynephilia]] are both redirects to an article that covers them both. That is, ''there is no page for [[Autoandrophilia and autogynephilia]] !'' Similarly, there is no such page as [[Andromimetophilia and gynemimetophilia]]; there is instead a redirect to the article that covers them both. I am suggesting doing exactly the analogous thing. There ought be no page for [[androphilia and gynephilia]]; they should be redirects to the article that covers them both, [[Sexual orientation]]...exactly the way the above terms and [[acid]] and [[base]] and everything else is set up on WP.[[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 11:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::*'''Comment'''. I agree, I think most of the arguments for deletion amount to [[WP:RUBBISH]]. [[User:Kyle112|Kyle112]] ([[User talk:Kyle112|talk]]) 09:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
::*'''Comment'''. I agree, I think most of the arguments for deletion amount to [[WP:RUBBISH]]. [[User:Kyle112|Kyle112]] ([[User talk:Kyle112|talk]]) 09:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:49, 22 July 2011
Androphilia and gynephilia
- Androphilia and gynephilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and long unsourced, despite multiple searches; content belongs in Sexual orientation — James Cantor (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. I have just added sourcing. Jokestress (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Redirect to Sexual orientation (of course). "Androphilia" (the sexual attraction to men) and "gynephilia" (the sexual attraction to women) are both perfectly legitimate terms and are indeed used by RS's. The combination of the terms, however, is WP:OR, and the content is "sexual orientation." By analogy, Acid and Base are pages, but Acid and Base is a redirect to Ph. The cites Jokestress added are examples of uses of the individual words, which is not the issue. ("Acid" and "base" are used by experts, but do not establish "acid and base" as a topic independent of Ph.) Finally, Jokestress' edits also claim on that mainpage that I personally have been advocating for other terms, which is both demonstrably incorrect and a BLP violation, as I already indicated there.— James Cantor (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. This article is about a notable debate in psychology regarding terminology. For several decades, there has been a push to use androphilic and gynephilic as alternatives to homosexual and heterosexual, especially when discussing sex and gender minorities. As an example of the problem, some psychologists use the term "homosexual transsexual" to describe what others call a "heterosexual transsexual." To avoid this confusion, Ron Langevin proposed androphilia and gynephilia in the 1980s. Since then, many scholars have discontinued use of terms like "homosexual transsexual." One exception is the nominator of this AfD, User:James Cantor, who used the term in his most recent published work in Archives of Sexual Behavior (cited in the article). This article has been included in the transgender sidebar as a key topic for quite some time. The debate should certainly be covered at sexual orientation, but there is too much published on the debate to paste all this into that article. It should be mentioned in summary style with a pointer to the main article. Jokestress (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. If there actually were a notable debate, we would have RS's saying so instead of Jokestress' just saying so (again). Also, Jokestress would not have to be fabricating information about me (or anyone else). I have actually used both the heterosexual/homosexual terminology and the androphilia/gynephilic terminology in my writings. (If there's a better indicator of neutral, no one has described what it might be.) Nonetheless, the issue is what the RS's say, not what Jokestress' well-documented harassment of scientists she dislikes says, which includes, I repeat, BLP violations.— James Cantor (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a well-sourced debate in psychology. As Anil Aggrawal writes (cited in the article), the terminology androphilia and gynephilia "is needed to overcome immense difficulties in characterizing the sexual orientation of transmen and transwomen. For instance, it is difficult to decide whether a transman erotically attracted to males is a heterosexual female or a homosexual male; or a transwoman erotically attracted to females is a heterosexual male or a lesbian female. Any attempt to classify them may not only cause confusion but arouse offense among the affected subjects. In such cases, while defining sexual attraction, it is best to focus on the object of their attraction rather than on the sex or gender of the subject." See the article for several other psychologists saying the same thing. Jokestress (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Aggrawal (who is a big fan of Blanchard, by the way), and you, and I are all entitled to use whichever terms we want. (That Blanchard prefers one set, and Aggrawal prefers another set, where I employ both, is neither here nor there.) Mention does not notability make. This requires input from the otherwise uninvolved.— James Cantor (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. I worked on this article in it's beginning when it was a stub and in a much worse state than it is now. The issue is obviously well sourced and discussed by notable people in the field of human sexuality. If something as small as LiveJasmin is deemed notable enough to deserve having it's own article, I don't see why this discussion in the field of psychology/sexuality/linguistics which whole books have been written of[1] should be deleted. Speedy keep because the nomination appears to be mostly an editing dispute, and also because the proposer wants the information moved rather than deleted and no one else so far wants the article deleted. James Cantor, please resolve your dispute over this article and don't propose the deletion of a valid wikipedia topic just to make a point (WP:POINT).Kyle112 (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. With all due respect for Kyle112 to have an opinion, that doesn't actually address the issue. Simply declaring an issue "well sourced" doesn't make it so. If there were indeed any reference that discussed "androphilia and gynephilia" at all, Klye would be citing it rather than telling readers what to think...effective only if no one actually checks. Regarding whether this is an editing dispute: Again, typing out a statement does not make it true. The talk page shows, quite clearly, that the issue has repeatedly been that there is not a single RS covering this topic, and the repeated failure of anyone to produce any, despite multiple requests over months. If this actually were over any particular edit(s), Kyle would be citing those edits rather than telling readers what to think...effective only if no one actually checks.— James Cantor (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
- Comment. That's a weird article history: Two-thirds of it has been repeatedly removed on BLP grounds, and repeatedly restored, with the (claimed) BLP problems basically being brushed aside. Doubtless the restoration is a strategically useful response to the threat of deletion, because, in practice, AFD almost never deletes articles that names a couple of dozen sources, even if the sources don't say anything significant—or even at all—about the subject (so few editors bother to find out what the sources actually say), but it might be worth looking at both of the versions.
I have not formed an opinion on what we should do with this page; it will require spending some time with the sources, to see how much of this might be a string of tiny, passing mentions or sources substantiating tangential points vs the significant, in-depth, independent, secondary sources that GNG requires. As a general point, however, I'd like to call the existence of WP:Proposed mergers to the attention of the nom: Merge-and-redirect discussions do not need to take place at AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. The alleged BLP issues have not been described. Once they are, they can be addressed if needed. It's certainly no reason to remove dozens of sources and quotations that have nothing to do with the alleged BLP issue (whatever it may be). Jokestress (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Jokestress' above description does not accurately reflect the discussion, which is available to the interested editor on the article's talkpage. Indeed, this subthread would be more appropriate to the article's talkpage than here. (And what, exactly, did I write in 1989?)— James Cantor (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The terms are used in a number of reliable sources and are notable individually; combining the discussion of these parallel terms in an article discussing their origins, application, and context is not novel in Wikipedia articles on sexuality.
- Here are examples of two similar pairs of parallel terms used in sexology; these terms are addressed in parallel in just one Wikipedia article for each pair:
- Autoandrophilia and Autogynephilia are both redirected to Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia
- and
- Andromimetophilia and Gynemimetophilia are both redirected to Transfan.
- Moreover, these articles address the overall context in which those terms have been used... as this one does. (Neither one of those articles is currently Wikilinked in Sexual orientation, as this article is). -- bonze blayk (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Although Bonze clearly did it unwittingly, Bonze is strongly agreeing with me. (!) As Bonze pointed out: Autoandrophilia and Autogynephilia are both redirects to an article that covers them both. That is, there is no page for Autoandrophilia and autogynephilia ! Similarly, there is no such page as Andromimetophilia and gynemimetophilia; there is instead a redirect to the article that covers them both. I am suggesting doing exactly the analogous thing. There ought be no page for androphilia and gynephilia; they should be redirects to the article that covers them both, Sexual orientation...exactly the way the above terms and acid and base and everything else is set up on WP.— James Cantor (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree, I think most of the arguments for deletion amount to WP:RUBBISH. Kyle112 (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)