Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeoFreak (talk | contribs) at 00:17, 8 April 2007 (→Third opinion: 3O given, merging the page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

LGBTQ+ studies Start‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

WHAT?!!!!!

Why would you have a picture like this on an article were anyone could visit? It seems to me that the picture in this article shows a little too much skin. Some child under the age of 16 could go on the article if he wanted to. 12.73.120.203 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you're writing from, but in London you can see more skin than that whenever the weather gets warm enough. --Taxwoman 09:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia is not censored and children are not harmed by sexual images when provided within an academic context, and dont you remember being a kid, whats the first word you looked up in the dictionary "sex" "bitch" anf "fuck" i bet, in junior high whatd you look up in your biology book "breasts" "penis" "sex" kids can find sex anywhere they want especially the internet and if they want to get off there are much more exiting sites to choose from than an encyclopedia just type in "sex" "blowjob" or "fucking" on google im sure your children haveQrc2006 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Type the word "bikini" into the search engine and you'll find far more skin. Sounds to me like you're more opposed to the actual wearing of rubber than the amount of skin exposed. Novatom 18:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This page might benefit from being further wikified and partitioned into sections. Fsecret 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My strategy would be more like moving large chunks of text out of the article and into the talk page because they are probably OR. Lotusduck 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

what the hell

i searched rubberman and got redirected here. i thought rubberman was a superhero, and was expecting that, though instead came to this page. i jut found it surprising lol, expecting a superhero, instead finding a fetish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Briefranch (talk • contribs) 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

24 hours

The editor(s) so interested in keeping this original research article have 24 hours to produce a single reliable source. That is all I want. After that it gets merged back into the "Garment Fetishism" article. NeoFreak 20:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not threaten to violate WP:Point.--Taxwoman 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make a point, I'm giving the chance for reliable sources to be found in order to verify this article. I'd just revert again, as is my right within policy, but I don't want to break 3RR for any reason except the most obvious and belligerent of vandalism. NeoFreak 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Posibly if NeoFreak would be good enough to source his "policy compliant" article adequately, the references could be used elsewhere. Or does he think that most of his article should be deleted? --Holdenhurst 18:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article should be deleted, yes. I haven't done so because the fetishes are clearly real even though their prior articles were not properly attibuted. The mention and brief desciption in an umbrella article was, what I thought to be, a decent compromise until the old articles could be sourced. NeoFreak 18:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me make one thing clear; personally, I don't really care about this article one way or the other. The only reason it's on my watchlist is because a vandal led me here. Furthermore I have no basis for offering any sources on it; I will leave that to others. My only reason for intervening was that there was an edit war going on, due to the fact that you'd decided to remove the article without discussion. As I pointed out here and here, there's a procedure for getting pages removed if you don't think they should be there. It doesn't matter if you're right about the article or not; blanking or redirecting without discussion is not acceptable, especially when it results in an edit war. I'm not sure if a "24 hour or else" is exactly civilised either, but thank you for showing a semblance of being prepared to discuss the issue. Maybe some of the other editors of this article would care to do the same. --Stephen Burnett 21:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time waiting and waiting and waiting for people to add a single source to their particular fetish's article. If you want add material and you want it to stay then you needs to attribute it. That's not my rule, that's wikipedia's rule, one that people often seem to think doesn't apply to "their" article. If and when a source is found the article can be put right back without any loss of content. Deletions are a different matter and for teh aformentioned reason not the same as a redirect. NeoFreak 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was asked by a participant in this article to take a look at it, and related articles under similar dispute.

There is right on both sides. Articles containing OR do need their contributors to seriously research and ensure that reasonable cites are provided. That's a priority for any article, and if cites aren't accessible or given then usually the content must be considered suspect, even if it's "common knowledge" in the field. If it is common knowledge then reliable or credible sources should be easy to locate, given some work. It's less easy in sexual topics, but even so for this, I'd expect reasonably authoritative type sources to be achievable.

That said, if sources are not provided, then one has to make a decision. Yes under policy, it can be deleted, but Misplaced Pages works best when collaborative, and that's not the most satisfactory answer. It might be better to ask, is there any information in this article which its authors do not feel could easily be substantiated by citations? Can they fix those, and then begin make some kind of evident progress to citing what remains. That might be best long term, since uncited articles and statements are likely to come under pressure as time passes. certainly 24 hours seems a little abrupt. A week or 10 days might be fair though; what can't be cirted in that time by good research is likely to be a problem, and I know from experience that at least one contributor here has good knowledge and access to relevant websites where such views might be sourced.

I'm not sure that delete and redirect is appropriate., though. If the subject can be made encyclopedic then thats the better solution. FT2 16:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything. I want these articles to be sourced. 24 hours is not unreasonable. These articles have been unsourced since they were created and nobody ever bothered to add any real refs or citations. As soon as some sources are found it takes a total of 4 mouse clicks to restore the articles to their previous form. Nothing is being lost here, this is just a case of an editors that feels that policy doesn't apply to her and as seems to believe that she somehow owns these articles. NeoFreak 18:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A bald statement that editors have 24 hours (your deadline, not consensus) to produce cites otherwise you will merge it (and remove the article as an independent article) is tantamount to a statement of intent to delete, really. I'm thinking, a week to ten days is reasonable; the article doesn't contain huge amounts of information or "dense" volumes of claims, so sourcing should be as above, readily possible. I've given how I see it. FT2 23:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your honest opinion. The problem is this article has gone unsourced for 4 and a half years. Years. It's been tagged as unreferenced for almost 6 months. The interested editors have shown zero interest in finding any reliable sources in that time. I'm not trying to delete the article, as I've already said as soon as refs are found the article can be restored with no pains at all. Consensus is not needed to enforce policy, that's why its policy. I don't want to be totally unilateral in my redirect though, you and others have shown alot of resistence to the immediate merge. I'll seek a third opinion and go from there. NeoFreak 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

It sounds to me like plenty of time has been given for sourcing to be provided, not just "24 hours". Sourcing is a requirement, not a nicety. Like NPOV, it's not something to be done before a Featured Article nomination or that's just nice when someone can get to it, it's required from the very first edit that creates an article. If this article cannot be sourced (as appears to be the case, since adding one single source would end the controversy), it needs merging or deleting. Seraphimblade 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'd like to keep this up in 3O for just a litte longer to get a greater exposure before making any merges (unless you do it yourself). NeoFreak 00:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The article has been delisted from the 3O page as per SOP. I'm remerging the page. NeoFreak 00:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles