User talk:MistressTaboo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Penis banding

In your note on my talk page you made an awful lot of assumptions about me and what I believe. I was very honest in my comment on the deletion page, and I believe that you completely misrepresented it in your paraphrase. What I said was that the article does not come up to the standard in terms of Wikipedia policy, namely, that it was original research (the policy in a nutshell is "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.", full article at WP:OR) and that it fell far short of the verifiability standard (policy in a nutshell: "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." note especially the reputable sources bit. This is not to say that no BDSM sources are reputable (you will note, for instance, the references in the article BDSM. I have no doubt that people practice this, and I actually don't particularly care how people act out their sexuality as long as it's consensual (and everyone has the power to give consent or withhold it). That's actually not's what's at issue in terms of this article, but rather its suitability for an encyclopedia, which is based on things which are verifiable. That very "hint of respecability" is the reason this article can't be on Wikipedia.

Now, for those other sources you gave, Answers is a mirror of Wikipedia, and the other is another wiki, with no editorial oversight whatsoever, and no sources itself. It's not what I would call a reputable source.

To sum up: I don't care about the subject, I care about the sources, which weren't even close to being acceptable. Mak (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing print sources in the Deletion Review. That's exactly the kind of thing we need. Since you mentioned reviewing them recently, would you mind providing page numbers (or at the very least chapter references)? Digging through Freud, especially, can be heavy going. If you've already found the relevant passages, making it easier for others to find them will definitely support the case for this article. Thanks again! FreplySpang 15:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)