Talk:Macrophilia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
To-do list for Macrophilia: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
||
| Priority 7 | ||
 |
Macrophilia was the Article Creation and Improvement Drive for the week spanning from Sunday, 06 May 2007.
For more details, see the Article Creation and Improvement Drive history. |
Contents |
[edit] Neutrality
The only analytical study cited, in a paragraph as large as the intro is also a depreciating and dismissing one. With no contrasting opinions present I would opt to omit or shorten the phrase or at least provide counter example studies. Otherwise the neutrality of the article could be disputed
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.17.241.239 (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
- Please add new additions to the talk page at the bottom. Yes, I agree that it sucks that the only health/medical opinion we can find in a reliable source is rather dismissive. Wether or not this position is justified is not our place to decide, as editors we need to find and source relavent and reliable material, the interpretation of the facts should be up to the reader. I am hoping some other sources turn up but as of right now the external links section is pretty expansive for a stub and they're all very pro-macrophilia community websites. NeoFreak 17:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must agree that with the only source provided being the one currently shown, the Helen Friedman paper, the article is not NPOV (not due to the paper in itself, but rather the omission of any counter points). As such, I think it is misleading to a reader to see what is quite clearly disputed as the ONLY 'opinion' presented (be it 'professional' or not). I would move that this be removed completely, even if it does mean shortening an already short article.
On a similar note, I'm inclined to make an argument towards the whole unsourced statement conflict. I understand that original research is to be avoided, and I realize the reasons for doing so. However, I think that if evidence is blatantly obvious, discretion can be applied. The article on humans should not require a thesis to be published before being able to state that humans generally have two arms. Similarly, I think that if something as evident as certain trends in Macrophilia are almost universally evident, they could be included, if done so with the gentlest of care.
If, for example, one says, "it is common for" when it is blatantly is, noting that there are exceptions and so forth, then I think it should be included. The alternative is an article two paragraphs long comprised of five and six word sentences, which, ultimately, is not very informative. The current opening paragraph seems as if it were lifted from wiktionary, it is so brief and undetailed. Surely it would be better to inform people of at least some common themes of Macrophilia, even if they aren't entirely universal, than to leave people completely bewildered by an article with little to no detail. Frankly, the old article should have, in my opinion, been edited, not deleted and replaced 58.178.125.177 14:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is the Salon source is the only source that meets WP:RS. There was a counter point made in the article by a macrophile it was just rather weak when held up against Freidmen's. We can't say "this or that" is a common theme unless it is asserted in a reliable source. Otherwise we are going to have conflicting opinions of various editors based upon unreliable sources and original research. There is no reason to remove the Salon source and if we did then we would have no sources at all. I understand that the only source is rather negative but until something esle is found then that is all we have and I'm not going to agree to its removal just because it's not flattering. NeoFreak 20:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mind the language
“Recently, however, this fetish has been more widely accepted with others, with genre crossover among fetishists known as "furries".” — this line implies that all anthropomorphic fans are fetishists, which is by far not true. I recommend rephrasing this sentence (would do it myself but I don’t have enough inspiration today, sorry).
Other than this, I’ll go and fix all the capital letters. This isn’t XVIII Century English :P -- Ralesk 16:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Arright, I eventually went and rephrased a couple things. Take a look. Ta -- Ralesk 16:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Major changes planned.
As an FYI, I've plans to update and revamp this page into something more usable. Thanks to Ralesk for laying down the groundwork, but it needs to be more accessible to those who are not Macrophiles and involved in the online sizechange communities, and less bewildering or offputting to those who are. I also plan to make it more comprehensive and, well, encyclopedic. It's an important topic, as there are a surprising number of macrophiles out there, and it's a strange, poorly understood paraphilia in the wider world. Changes will go live probably on March 10th, 2005, and I'll copy over the original article to the Talk page, in case someone feels it's a better representation of the topic and wishes to revert part or all of it.
- Its the 14th and there isn't any major revamp, Has this 'plan' been called off or something?
[edit] The male giants
I really would like to see something about the macrophiles who appreciates male giants. It is becoming something more common, there are groups as http://groups.yahoo.com/group/growth_industry that has too many members. Please, I really think that is necessary someone writes about it. The groups about male giants are always growing. Is it something relationated with the fathers of these kind of macrophiles? I guess there are diferences between the macrophiles who apreciates male giants and the other kind of macrophiles. Is good to remember that the women and the gays generally prefer tall men.
--D.Lankow 02:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Well, I agree that someone should write about these gay groups, because this kind of macrophilia is growing. I myself own three english and one german macrophile group. It is a phenomenon, really. One group has more than 1400 members at least (since 2001). You know, I would do it myself, but my english is not that far, that I could write an analysis of the gay macrophilia, like this one we're discussing. But I will help to work on it, if someone will begin to write about these communities. --D.Lankow 02:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Giant lizards/creatures
I've seen a page claiming to be macrophilic that focused on giant fantasy creatures such as Godzilla. I don't know if there is a reptile-philia that would be related, besides the general "furry" category.
[edit] Giant lizards/creatures, Further elaboration
Note: I did not post the previous comment called "giant Lizards/creatures".
As a macrophiliac myself, and mainly a reptile-fond one, I must say it is not rare to find websites, communities, galleries, forums and others related to giant reptiles (and other creatures). In some cases it is not directly sexual-related, specially in persons who avoid to think in sexual topics, but still feel attracted to giant creatures; in this very moment I have two examples I remember: myself, when I was younger, and someone I met recently in a MUCK. In those cases --SPECIALLY when the macrophiliac avoids to relate his inclination with sexuality (or genitalia, in other cases)-- it is not gender specific; again I take myself and other ones I know as examples, our preference is not gender specific, and could also fantasy on completely genderless creatures (with absolute null involvement of genitals in a fantasy; or in other cases, without the involvement of the larger creature's ones). My apologies if my way to explain this sounds too rough, but I try to be direct. I think it is almost unavoidable to write on this topic and not be biased. If I wrote it, I could have been very biased towards the interest in larger creatures, without giving importance to gender, and not mentioning macrophilia towards humans (which I think, perhaps is the most common, who knows; I have not been in human-macrophile communities, ever).
I might write a long text about what I have observed on this matter during the last four years, hoping to be wikified and NPOVed by peers. I am a very observative and curious person, I'm constantly asking about what I'm interested in, and perhaps my point of view could help make this article more complete.
I'd deeply appreciate answers. I didn't want to directly edit the article as it has become more complete and encyclopedic-looking, so I prefer to put my thoughts on the discussion and see what can be done. In this last line I insist: I'm mainly a non-human macrophile (and was a completely non-human macrophile for most of my life but the last year), and I have been gathering information --by living it myself and observing others-- for years. I don't know much about the human-oriented dimension of macrophilia, except for the snapshot idea which website's portraits and group's introductions in yahoo can give. That's all. Take great care, and have a happy wikipedieing.
--Pentalis 05:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In a bit of an answer and a bit of discussion as of the post above, as it is one of the things we are scheduled to hit on, I find Pentalis's point of view to be predominantly true. I have met a lot of fellow macrophiles who are actually turned off by the mentioning of more sexual situations involving giants, or are indifferent or only mildly biased towards sexual situations with giants. I myself consider myself a macrofurry/macroscaly, (the, I guess "proper" way of identifing everyone from dragon lovers to godzilla lovers. Reptiles mythically or not, in other words.) and I only know a little about human macrophilia, having little to no experience in this fields. However in both fields what little I have found is that sexual situations do exist, which is why they are here. I recognize, Pentalis, that you were not stating that any of this mentioned here was false, but simply there was another side, but I wished to clarify that for anyone else. However Pentalis also brings up a good point in that Macrofurry, which at the moment is a wikipage all of it's own is technically a subgroup of macrophilia. So I personally would love to see the two pages combined in some form, as I, as one of the contributors to the macrofurry wiki, myself have ended up crossing over a lot of information already stated here, and this wiki states that macrofurries exist as well, without much further elaboration. As a relative new comer here I'm not sure how to "officially" go about a poll/vote for weather or not the Macrofurry and Macrophilia pages should be combined, however I would like to make it an open proposal for all who read this discussion page. --Galactor213 8:00 16 Feb 2006
Ok, I put the merge tag in Macrofurry article, and a post in the talk page. If nobody answers I think I'm going to be bold and do it myself. Pentalis 13:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I, if you checked, am one of the major contributors to that page. And as it's foremost contributor I have authorized it too be moved here.--Galactor213 4:04 23 Feb 2006 (-5 GMT)
[edit] Coming on theirs own
"Interestingly enough, women who come to it on their own tend to be unusually tall (and assume a giantess role) or short (assuming a shrunken-woman role) in real life, or were so perceived during childhood or adolescence."
If anything, that is a a person's personal view and needs either a citation, or needs to be commented on that this is an unconfirmed trend. I have seen extremes of this (Tall Macrophiles (6'+), and normal sized/short macrophiles sharing both aspects of intrests) and proof is baddly needed less it be deleted. Further more. the term 'coming to it on their own' is very vague. Especially about in terms of what age (post/pre puberity or during puberity) where most of growth happens in a human body
I am not saying this is incorrect, (being a 6'4 macrophile myself and knowing taller ones) But it needs to be cleaned up.
I have heard of this before, but as is, needs to be edited so it doesn't sound like it is fact with out proper citation. (I would love to hear where that information is coming from.)
[edit] sources
I think the main problem with this right now is complete lack of sources. As in, both on the article and in the rest of the web... I mean, the one or t two sources we have (introduction to Macrophilia by Samuel Ramses for example) are either made by macrophiles or posted on marophilia websites. Outside of that I can't find any reliable sources involved with macrophilia at all. It definitely exists, and it definitely needs to be put here, but I'm afraid it will be deleted if we can't source it quickly. Galactor213 00:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is no Scholar peer-reviewed research about Macrophilia that I could cite (except an unreadable PDF about crush freaks, which perhaps wasn't peer reviewed after all). And referencing a website made by macrophiles is ok, Lavadomefive has existed for many years and it is an acceptable source; as much as it is referencing a website made by medics to give information about medicine. *Cough* but I agree that there's this problem with lack of sources to reference... there's not much that could be done about it. Still, in the worst case this article won't be deleted, it might be trimmed down, for the worse of readers who will have to go and research themselves to find their answers, but never deleted, that would be stupid, there IS references for the basic points this article makes, and it is overwhelmingly obvious that macrophilia exists, and that there's furry macrophiles too. We might not have as many references like the article about "pwn", but go to any search engine, write "GTS" or "macrophilia" or "macro furry" and see how your screen floods. Don't you agree? :) Pentalis 12:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, so I might be exaggerating when I say deleted, but still. It's a major problem with this article. I think it, besides maybe pictures and a bit of cleaning, is in a state where we could safely call it encyclopedic and not be too far from the truth if it weren't for the source issue. So I guess this is just a call in general to any macrophiles out there, send in your references. We kinda need them. I will be much ablidged. Galactor213 03:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Some form of Macrophilia no doubt exists but I'm not sure it does in the context expressed here. I'm going to look around for some sources. If I can't find any and no one else cites some I'm going to trim this article down to a stub. Also Marcophilia fan sites or message boards do not meet the criteria for self published sources under WP:RS and they are not verifiable. There is some more dissscussion about this issue on the Otherkin and Furry fandom article's talk pages. If a subject is too obscure or fringe to have any reliable sources the chances are it doesn't meet notability guidlines. Any help with sources would be appreciated. NeoFreak 15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- An initial source I've found to be integrated into the article soon:
[edit] Clean up
I have removed the unsourced material and assertions from the article. I also removed the external link from lavadome. The "introduction to macrophilia" by the supposed Samuel Ramses, "M.D., Ph.D" reads like a fan-written FAQ essay. This was obviously not written by a doctor some much a medical doctor with a Ph.D. to boot. The only place I could find this gentelmen's name anywhere was on sites that ripped off the "intro". No published works, no practice, no graduate work, no mention as a graduate or as an alumni of any medical school, nothing. If I could find this name on a more reliable source I would be better able to justify it's inclusion here but as it is there is no verifiability and this is not a reliable source.
I've also quoted the psycologist in the Salon article. I know that portion of the article has a rather negative tone but she was the only professional I could find commenting on the topic. I couldn't figure out a different way to frame the webmaster's response to this in a way that didn't just rip the quote out and preceed it with "dave the webmaster says:". If anyone can figure out a more eloquent or descriptive way of paraphrasing the guy I would really apprecite it. NeoFreak 19:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
... Kind of a LOT to cut out of the article isn't it? Out of the entire web you couldn't find anything that proves the difference between Furry/Human Macrophilia? I was tempted to revert this, but I wanted to see if a debate would solve it without harsh words being flung around, so here I am. I don't think this intensive of a clean up was neccesary, as it looks to me more like a mass deletion then a clean up. Weasel words and all that are fine to delete, but this is an article just like BDSM and other paraphilias that your going to be hard pressed to find a single reliable source for. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I was afraid someone was going to do this, hence the reason it's on the to do list. However I see this type of thing as rather counter productive. I apologize for my confrontive tone, but it's mildly insulting to see all of this hard work turn into a paragraph because someone doesn't think it exists... Galactor213 03:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree here with Galactor. Being a macro furry myself I think its doing a big injustice for you to be the say all of what belongs here and doesn't in the names of sourcing material. I think there should be a compromise in what is acceptable over what isn't. Maybe the article isn't sourced but most of the times people put in source tags rather then revert an article. I think if anything a vote or a compromise should be done here before someone takes it into their own power to revert an article that is meaningful and informative to those who may be curious to what macrophilia is all about. I'm sorry to if I'm sounding harsh but this seems a bit extreme and over the top to turn the article back into a stub. There was already a "Doesn't site sources" tag and you can very easily put "source needed" tags if you feel that the article isn't to snuff. But in no way is your solution to what you find the problem to this article to be a proper solution to it. A lot of people worked hard here, and unfortunatly I wasn't one of them as I came by wikipedia long after this listing was created. Its a work in progress. If you have problems with it talk about it here. Reverting an article to nothing is not the way to do it either. I am going to revert it back because your solution isn't right either. Can't just throw out peoples hard work because there aren't sources to reference things. Im a macrophile. I live with it everyday. Don't tell me that it doens't exist because there aren't some websites out there saying it does. Put in sources needed tags in the parts you feel aren't to snuff and thats more then a fair compromise. This is not right what you did here NeoFreak. Its appreciated you are trying to help but this isn't how to do it. This sexual intrest is real to many people. It may be just some wikipedia listing to you but its a way of life to those who are in to it and I don't think you were very fair here at all. Next time take a vote or offer alternatives before you take control of a situation that could have been resolved in a more reasonable manor. Wikipedia is for everyone and that includes a section like this. This is a work in progress and unfortunatly no there aren't a lot of sources on this intrest as well I guess it just isn't important enough to research as it doesn't make a difference in life but it is real and everything said (which I didn't add to by the way) is very real and true. Sorry can't source it. You just gotta live it I guess to understand. PantheraLeo 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well I don't want to step on people's emotions here but the fact is that my edit (which I'm going to restore) was within the rules their and guidlines of wikipedia. I want to make clear that I never claimed Macrophilia to be nonexistant, if that were the case I would have nominated the article for deletion as a hoax. What I said is that while I have no doubt that it exists I'm not sure it does in the context and detail described by the original research in this article. There is no way to prove what is calimed in this article as it has no reliable sources. I added the reliable source that I found for the subject and reduced that article to a stub; this is the proper format for an article that has potential to grow and needs more sources and work done to it. Wikpedia has very specific and detailed rules and guildlines in place for a reason: this is an encyclopedia and people can't just add what they want to it. Wikipedia is also not a democracy and while I'm sure many interested parties would come here to vote for the inclusion of material that violates policy this is irrelevent. It is not my job to find sources for others work. Anyone who wants to add material as factual has the burden of finding the sources to bac their assertions. This is not being done here.
- I didn't want to give the impression of a sudden and drastic edit (which it was) or a sneak attack. You are correct in that I should have used some templates befroe making the changes and given it some time. The reason I did not do this was the general lack of substantial edits in the recent past and the total lack of effort to ever find reliable sources. I'm sorry I did not give more than a couple days warning but the fact remains that all the edits are kosher.
- I fully support the expansion of this article as I feel that it deserves inclusion into the encyclopedia and would be more than willing to help find sources or doing other editing work. Please review wikipedia policy and guildlines before making an more reversion of my edits. I have put alot of time into understanding these before making my edits to ensure that I am doing both the encyclopedia and its articles justice, please do the same. "Living it" is not an acceptable reason to include unsourced original research and is a POV concern if anything. NeoFreak 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sorry you are wrong here. You are just a deletionist who thinks they are going remove all things that are wrong about wikipedia in your opinion hidding behind a few guidelines that you can use to back your moves. But there are many many many pages that have unsourced information and they are not turned into stubs like this. Im sorry but if we have to take it higher up then we will. You are being a hypocrate here thinking you can come in and change things due to your own personal views and then using a few links to show why you can do that. Just because its not on the internet that means its not acceptable? That is ridiculous and even you know that. This is something that a lot of people put hard work into and there is no way that you should be the say all because of some clause saying not enough research is here. You gave a few days and then do it? Thats ridiculous. There are some pages with much more vital information then this that have source needed tags for years that you don't seem to be focusing on. You are coming off like nothing more then a bully here thinking that they are going to turn this into what they feel wikipedia should be. Im not going to get into a fight over who is right and wrong but there are many people here who have been around on wikipedia a lot longer then you who think your actions were rash, harsh and ridiculous. If you want to improve the article add to it. There is no way stubbing an article to meet YOUR standards that you are going to pull out links to back on wikipedia policy are going to stand. Add tags to what you want sourced and hopefully people can find it. Don't stub something as that is not acceptable when so much was put into this article. You say you are all for fixing this article yet you can't wait to remove it. Sorry you still have not come up with a compromise that all are happy with here. Until you do there is no way an article should be stubbed. So please stop stubbing it as it is not going to stick. You want to talk about this do so. Stop stubbing the article and actually talk. You are not the say all on what goes on here. You can pull all the links to back your actions that you want. I can show you many a page that had tags that say site sources and have for years and everyone is alright with it. Stop pushing your views on what you feel wikipedia should be just because you read somewhere thats how it should be. You are a deletionist and not helping to expand Wikipedia but trying to kill it. And its wrong. PantheraLeo 17:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Wow. I don't even now where to start with that. I'm sorry your feelings got hurt but personal attacks and "you're a bully for shrinking one of my favorite articles" is not really an argument against me cleaning out this artilce. I don't recall insulting you at any point and would appreciate it if you refrained from doing so. Thanks.
-
-
-
- As for "just throwing in a few links" to justify my actions...well those links are policy. That might not mean alot to you but it means alot to most of the other editors around here. Thery are the framework in which this encyclopdia is built and trust me, they matter. Also, other pages that don't meet policy don't justify other violations, this should be obvious. I know it may appear that I'm "picking on" this one because you think I have a problem with it at some personal level (if that were the case I'd be over at the pedo pages) but I don't and I can't be everywhere at once. I'd also like to remind you that these are not my standards, they are wikipedia's standards.
-
-
-
- This article has been around for almost three years and you want to know how many reliable sources it cited? ZERO. The only source this article ever got was one that I added so please don't accuse me of bad faith like you've been doing. I don't appreciate it. If you would like to restore this material then by all means do so, if you can cite them. That's your responibilty as the editor that wants to include it. Period. If you don't like the fact that you actually have to source statements you put into the encyclopeida then either work to change that policy or try working on a private wiki or webpage. I will not get into an edit war with you but if you want to "take it to a higher level" whatever it is you think that is, than that's fine, just don't waste my time. Please review WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR first: You're not going to win, you are in the wrong. If you want me to help you find more sources I will, I have no problem with that. NeoFreak 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Temper temper NeoFreak. Strike a nerve with you did I? I am sorry about that. Honestly you seem like a nice guy and you mean well but You have to learn to respect others here and not be the say all on everything as if you are going to be the enforcer of all policies. Boy you must really want to be an admin badly. :) But please do not threaten an edit war as I know full well that IS against wikipedia policy to threaten that and I really hope others don't have to be brought in to monitor this as it should never come to that. You are unwilling to compromise as is common policy here to do so. You have not put any cite source tags in, you come marching in here throwing out links (which I read fully by the way and still don't see what gives you any right to stub an article without giving warning, ways to work it better and taking into respect the nature of the subject that there is very little sources out there on.)
-
-
-
-
-
- Please go to the article God and revert it back to stub and tell them that not enough references to prove existance are there. See what type of reaction you get to that. You are not going to win because you will find that your basis are nonsensical. Keep finding things all you want to prove that you can do whatever you want. But the truth of the matter is that you can't just throw links out and back what you are doing. The policies do not give you the right to make an article how you see fit. Believe me, I read the policies quite well. The things you are throwing out there are not at all rational for your behavior. You are really wrong in this and I know the policy quite well. I read it over many times. First of all you can't stub something when you have offered nothing to help improve the article. You search the whole internet and then decide that one thing that you put there, which is silly by the way, is all that is worthy of being here, when people who are macrophiles and live it tell you that they are experiencing it and you decide thats not good and throw out links to back your nonsensical changes. Whatever man. If I lose so be it, you will win and then what? You go back to ruining things for everyone else because you claim the rules say so? Wow you really are going to make a difference in the lives of so many here with this. Give him an award now everyone. Hes really making this place a joy to be. You want everything proven to a tee or it can't be on a page? What proof? You don't believe macrophilia exists or that the statements here aren't important and honest statements by those who have edited here? Ok put in some tags saying so and things will be found. You are doing it backwards removing everything and not giving people a chance to read what is out there and see that while no there are no sources it is what all those who live it (which are sources in themselves.. I think people who live macrophilia everyday are more vital then some doctor who does a case study) know to be the case. But you want some doctor to say it in a case study that will NEVER be done. Why would a doctor invest in researching a sexual fetish? It makes no sense for them to do so. So this article will never be more then a stub by your interpretations of the rules. Its really just not right or fair what you are doing and Im glad to have at least said "No. You can't just do this like that."
-
-
-
-
-
- Im glad to have fought for something important for people to know. Your version of this article offers nothing of substance at all for people interested in it. There may be no references ever that show up on this subject matter. And as big as the internet is that is going to be the case for many items out there. The internet is not the end all on subject matter. Go to any of the sites that talk about this subject and see the same themes over and over. Do you know anything at all about macrophilia to even be talking about what belongs here or not? We can revert this everyday. I don't mind. This is an important subject for people to understand and yeah we can work things out to make the article better. Add some source needed tags and talk about what improvements you would like. But I have read enough of all the policies you listed to know that your solution is not proper either.
-
-
-
-
-
- Your solution is too extreme and Im offering ways so all are happy. You just want to be an admin one day and make fun of the fact that I edited a typo. Wow big man you are. Lets stick to the facts not your buracracy. You want to get stuck in red tape or truly make this a section that people can come to to learn about macro? If there are references needed put the tags in that say so. The only thing you have accomplished is to make a complete disservice to this page and how un informative it now is to anyone who wants to understand what macro human giants and macro furries are all about. I may lose this because a) I don't plan to keep reverting it. I have better things to do with my time as hard as that is to believe and b) If someone is going to be that techincal on the rules and search for every statement they can find to back their moves there is nothing I can do on that as I will assure you now I have NO intention of searching every rule to find why what you are doing is wrong. I just am glad to have this all here in writing and hopefully one day things will be right here in the way they should be. Im not going to revert it again as you will just keep changing it back like the bully you are. So congrats. You win even after all I said. I just have no patience to get into an edit war with you. Macro not being here properly will not change the way those into it live it everyday or change the fact that it exists. Its sad people like you do ruin what could be great about Wikipedia. Very sad indeed. That is all I have to say. You can bash or comment or whatever to me. There will be no reply on this as you are not worth commenting to. I said all I have to on this and hope people will fight for this as well to put a stop to people like you who hide behind rules and personal feelings on interpretations of rules that were never meant to be used like this in this case. Good work though. Heres your trophy for being a great wikipedian. NOT! PantheraLeo 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Three things. One: I don't recall making fun of you editing a typo. If you are refering to my own typo/homonym fix than you've misinterpreted some self-depreciating humor. Two: I'm not challenging Macrophilia, I'm just contesting the appropriateness of this article's contents. Don't confuse the two. Three: There was a sources needed tag on this page before I found it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm sorry this didn't end on a happier note, I hope that you can spend all this energy you have on the topic at a more approprite place. Try wikifur or one of the million pages out there devoted to this sort of thing. NeoFreak 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Woah woah woah... see, this is precisely why I thought debate would be good to this sort of thing... I knew someone would get upset. I accept your apology Neo, and I apologize myself for being a little harsh on you. Just a bit of a shock is all, and you apologized for it being a bit sudden. That being said, I still think that the original article was better then this. It was in the guidelines for you to change this, but I think where you and I differ is I am an inclusionist, while your a deletionist.. I think that conciseness comes after you have gotten decent information and sources. However something has to be done about this article, and I think either it should go to a mediation committee, or we should attempt a compromise of sorts. Your choice, as otherwise this article isn't going to get better then it's current rather sorry, but precise, state. Galactor213 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You and I are in total agreement, a real consensus on content can only come with decent information and sources available. I'm not sure what you want mediated. You want to include unsourced, unverifiable information and the POV of some editors for the sake of having a more "meaty" article? I don't want that information included because it violates policy, is potentially inaccurate and more than likely not representative? What is you're argument? That this article should be an exception under WP:IAR? Don't let me give you the impression that I'm being overly curt, it's just the end of a long day, my questions to you are honest and in good faith. NeoFreak 22:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It was merely an idea to get mediated, as obviously this arguement, while small in number of people, has randomly gotten pretty heated unnecessarily (which I accept partial blame for). Regardless, it may be against public policy to have unsourced things, but in a way, yes, I think paraphilias should have an exception to that, as true reliable sources are few and far between, BUT there is a lot of unreliable sources that distinctably describe all of the different aspects rather well and unencyclopedically. Granted, they are biased, but as you've found yourself, even the "reliable" sources are rather POV... paraphilias are seen as defects and strange by most people still. And while I don't blame them, and I don't blame you of thinking this way, it makes making something encyclopedic rather hard. You see my conundrum then as I too wanted to make it as reliable and NPOV as possible, but as you can see now, that leaves this article in a rather sorry state. THAT is my arguement, and I apologize for not making that clearer to you before, and causing all this rambling. From here however, I think we do need to come to a consensus. Flesh out this article a bit with facts that we can back up, regardless of the "reliability" of sources, while cutting out the proposertous claims and total nonsense. I know that sounds like "cheating" and just doing it to make it look good, but I do think thats for the best with something as odd as this page is. Thoughts would be welcome, but I advise everyone to remain civil....
- Galactor213 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There is nothing random about this spat. PantheraLeo got upset because I cut down a large portion of an article that he has a conflict of interest and personal investment in. I get irritated when people try to circumvent policy because of their own self interest and soapboxing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Paraphilia articles can be very well sourced (Pedophilia, Zoophilia). If a subject is so obscure as to have no sources than maybe it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. With the circles I travel in it is pretty hard for me to be shocked, disturbed or offended any more, believe me. I have no doubt that a form of Macrophilia exists and contrary to your impression I could not care less about what it is adults do to each other in the bedroom, at conventions, parties, etc. I do care about this encyclopeida. I'm all for adding to this article but doing so "regardless of reliablility" of sources is not acceptable. I know that some Macrophilia material was covered in Bizzare magazine and I'll try to find some sources there. In the mean time please only add material to this article that conforms to policy. If you have any questions for me in particular plewase feel free to drop me a line at my talk page and I'll do what I can to help. Cheers. NeoFreak 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The subject is NOT obscure. That is one of the few things that I don't agree with you. There is a very large community, both of human and furry macrophiles who would argue with you there. The reason that it hasn't been studied is A) it is an odd paraphilia that keeps to itself mostly, and B) It, unlike zoophilia or pedophilia, is not considered a dangerous or media friendly fetish. Zoophilia is considered disgusting to most people, and thus gets press coverage (and thus physician report on it), and it's obvious while pedophilia gets coverage. It just seems to me that you are stating one thing and yet doing another. I think the policy for Wikipedia SHOULD be to give information when it is wanted. It is obviously wanted, as you have seen by the harsh reaction you've been given after changing this, and this page IS linked to from places like wikifur as well as other giantess websites, fur and human a like. The groups are there that want to know about this, and I figure it's an obligation to give it too them. It's a shame no physicians look at this, it's a shame that they're are no unbiased opinions about this. However I do believe that if you are allowing something like Helen Friedman's article in here (which by the way, it's rather fishy that that you just happened to be the creator of that article the same moment that you changed this one.) then I think it's only fair that you allow at least one member of the paraphilia's article in here. It will be NPOV then, due to two differing viewpoints on the subject. Regardless, as I know I haven't swayed you, I put a request for comment in, as this obviously is not going to resolve itself simply by consensus, as I don't think either of us are willing to do it. I want one thing, and you want what seems to be the exact opposite of that, and we both have valid points. Galactor213 23:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I created the Friedman article after I found her and then researched her as a source for this article. I was considering asking for an outside opinion as well so I will wait until that request is taken up. I honestly think all I've done here is bring this article inline with policy but I understand why some people with a personal interest with the subject might take offense. NeoFreak 13:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] RfC
In the jist of it, the controversy comes between inclusionism and deletionism. Myself, and PantheraLeo believe that the article was better before Neofreak edited it (that version, by the way, can be found Here). It had more information, and was the work of a good number of macrophiles for a long time. However, Neofreak argues, and rightly so, that the article lacked a lot of sources, and the sources that were there were rather sketchy at best. Now, this might seem to be a cut and dry case of NPOV or lack of verifiability, however as it stands, all of the former information (most of which being furry macrophilia) is verifiabile in it's existance, but not so much more then that. There are plenty of sites devoted to it, but not many medical reports from physicians on the paraphilia itself, and the ones that do exist are arguably NPOV as well, as the community as a whole downright denies it. All being said, the thing has gotten a bit nasty, with people vandalizing it in retribution, and Neofreak and PantheraLeo both getting somewhat pissy at each other (see the arguement above for that).
What we need:
- Mediator on what to do next. Is it better as it is, a stub with very little specific information, but well sourced; or as it was, with a lot of information, but not many sources citing it.
- Source finder. This article, weither or not it is found to be better as it is or reverted back to it's former state, is in a desperate need of reliable sources. If more sources were found, I think the whole arguement would be unneccesary.
Thank you. Galactor213 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I support Galactor213 in his assesment that we need proper mediation here to fix a situation that has gone from bad to much worse due to someones trying to fix it in their vision and strict interpretation of the rules. I hope that this page can be restored to its previous version which very few had any problem with in the first place and that proper mediation can help find a solution that all are happy with. This is not one persons page to edit, but everyone's to and lets not take the power away from the people who make Wikipedia what it is. Thanks and I hope that something can be done here so all sides are happy and this listing gets the proper representation it deserves on Wikipedia. PantheraLeo 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Nice speech. I suggest everyone read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR one last time before any formal requests are made. If at that point either of you still feel like we need a mediation then fine, I'm willing to devote some time to soothing feelings here. Remember though that mediation is not really a place to debate content or policy so much as to resolve general disputes. I'm not going to compromise on policy because it is, after all, policy. You want it, you need to source it, period. Once I see the "disputes to be resolved" in the request I'll be better able to help you two out here. NeoFreak 14:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I am coming here via Rfc. Ughhhh although I found the old version informative, it is totally in violation of WP:V. I was about to nominate the whole page for deletion (AfD) when I noticed the one refference wasn't working and I couldn't find anything on the web except blogs and various macro sites. Remidied that.
-
-
-
-
-
- So, via WP:V, and WP:RS, ... I'd say any fact not contained in that Salon article shouldn't be put in the articleSethie 04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I was thinking of an AfD nom as well until I fished around and found the Salon article. With the single reliable source and the fact that it is obvious that some kind of "Marcophilia" does exist this gave me enough reason not to do so. Thanks for your time. NeoFreak 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Alright, I know when common consensus is against me, and right now is that time. You've gone through my little hoops Neofreak, and for that I thank you, I apologize for making this a debacle and you've been more then understanding. While I don't agree with the current revision, I'm not going to argue it further as your right, it wasn't well sourced. Rather then that, all has been said already. The article stays as is, I'll update the to-do list accordingly. Galactor213 04:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Citation:The West Australian (Perth), December 29, 2006 Friday, METRO, FEATURES; Pg. 5, 156 words, PAM BROWN
I read this review of a program, this could be a citation for something:
"Copyright 2006 West Australian Newspapers Limited All Rights Reserved The West Australian (Perth)
December 29, 2006 Friday METRO
SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 5
LENGTH: 156 words
HEADLINE: PAY TV
BYLINE: PAM BROWN
BODY:
Mancrushers, c&i, Saturday, 9.30pm (EST)
Macrophilia is not an obsession with furry Australian marsupials, it is a fetish based on giantism and it takes some seriously strange forms.
The desire for domination by a giant is said to draw on the desire of some men and women to be conquered.
But some people take it to bizarre levels. One man makes model cities only to see them trampled by a giantess. Other men pay handsomely to have women literally walk all over them.
A whole sub-culture has emerged serving the needs of macrophiliacs, including Amazonian conventions."
Unfortunately I cannot find head nor tails of the television program that s being described. Can someone just use the article? I used lexisnexis. Also, holy crap lets archive this talk page. Lotusduck 17:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Reference
I've reverted some seemingly unsourced material from the page per WP:ATT. I also noticed that there was a ref added to the bottom of the page, a "Channel 4 documentry". I'm not sure what portions of the reverted material are supposed to be supported by this reference and where we can find it. If this is a documentery on "Macrophilia" that would be great but if not we might be in danger of violating WP:SYN. Could I get some more info on the ref please? NeoFreak 21:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
