Talk:Aquaphilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 03-10-07. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This is a real term used by some fetish websites, I checked on google. But a lot of fetish groups doesn't always add up to verifiability. If nobody can cite it with real sources, it has gotta go, simple enough. So the next time someone edits this and doesn't add a credible source, I guess I'll nominate it for deletion? Something has got to be done besides. Lotusduck 20:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  OK, I've added an etymology of the word, including cites for its first use, which can be
  verified on the Wayback Machine. I have a copy of the Lamberth paper, since Corinne was my
  wife until her death in January 2000.

[edit] Cite sources

It's cool that you tried to cite sources for this article, but you didn't really cite sources. Talking about a report within the article is not citing sources. Instead, make a references section and then provide the publisher, title of article and page, citing something published widely enough to be reasonably requested at a public library, not self published. Lotusduck 20:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Numbers of hits on news sites and scholarly article searches still put this as a candidate for deletion, but waiting until the next time someone edits this page before nominating it for deletion seems reasonable to me. Lotusduck 19:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Lotusduck, but on that basis, you'd have to delete virtually every fetish page, all of the "movie" pages and lots of other additional information.

You yourself have said that there is plenty of evidence of the use of the word - do you need an OED cite to leave it alone? Tramlink 10:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word is not the same thing as notability and verifiability. Any movie with any sort of budget has articles written about it by some outside newspaper or publisher. Many fetishes are verifiable through outside sources as well. I don't require an OED entry for this, (which there isn't one), but this page does need to be verifiable according to wikipedia standards. Some usage proven by googling 'aquaphilia' amounts to some notability for the term, but not verifiability for any information on the term. Although, as guidelines state, verifiability is connected to notability- if no outside article can be referenced on a topic, making it unverifiable, it probably isn't very notable either. Lotusduck 20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in some respects. Verifiable does not mean notable, however. As an example, Emma Watson was born in England. This is verifiable, but not notable. By comparison, Michael Barrymore has been accused of killing someone. This IS notable, but is not verifiable. That a water fetish exists, known as Aquaphilia, is verifiable. That the fetish has a specific and unique name used by many adherants, coined nearly 10 years ago, is notable. A google search on the word produces 90 hits, including several other online reference documents. Indeed, there is sufficient verifiablilty to actually add this word tt he OED under their rules. It feels like this is a deletion proposal out of spite. Tramlink 22:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I assure you there are no hard feelings on my part towards this article at all. If you can add sources to this page that are up to wikipedia standards for being from an outside publisher, then I would be quite happy. I tried to do so myself in searching news agencies for articles and psych journals for some comment on Aquaphilia. Any reservations I have about this article would be completely gone if it cited sources. But I'll believe it when I see it. Also your OED comment seems really unlikely to me, how could a word not used once in a search of a large number of news organizations feilded for the past two years be viable to be in any dictionary? Lotusduck 00:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

OED rules for an entry require several things. A demnstrable common use of the word, a demonstrable common meaning of the word and a demonstrable use of the word in print, including on web pages. In the case of Aquaphilia, we have all three. The problem with sexual fetishes is the "discussability" of the subject - as it s a fetish, it's unlikely to becme commonly known outside the "scene" of the fetish in question. It's clear that Aquaphilia has been around for years - certainly there are examples of aquaphilic prostitution in Hong Kong in the 1800's (http://www.sexualrecords.com/WSRvariety.html). The difficulty is that the term was coined by a member of the scene, and it is not in common use outside the scene. This, of course, does not change the validity of the term. Additionally, the term aquaphobia implies the opposite exists. Tramlink 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you have blanked without good cause, and destroyed others work, makes you a potential Vandal. So much for "no hard feelings". I an others are trying to improve this, and you are destroying our work. PLease stop. Tramlink 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What? I removed one link, once. I explained that removal: erotic practices that involved water are not neccessarily linked to modern aquaphilia. This is a community effort, when I exert my opinion you can change it or ignore it as you have. Accusing someone of vandalism because of one edit you do not like is against guidelines- Wikipedia: Assume good faith Lotusduck 03:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the history of the edits demonstrates the lack of good faith.

01:52, 24 January 2006 Lotusduck (→External links - Practices similar to what you call aquaphilia that are not related to that term or community are irrelevant.)

01:51, 24 January 2006 Lotusduck (I have my own domain name, and I can write in a relatively journalistic fashion. That doesn't mean I can call myself a journal and be a source for wikipedia articles.)

20:27, 22 January 2006 Lotusduck

19:43, 21 January 2006 Lotusduck

21:48, 19 January 2006 Lotusduck (remove advert)

20:08, 18 January 2006 Lotusduck

20:33, 16 January 2006 Lotusduck (→External links)

21:54, 10 January 2006 Lotusduck (remove advert)

In the last 14 days, you have removed the contributions of 7 different editors, simply because you have a thing about false paraphilias You have blanked whole segments which explain the subject, on more than one occasion. You've deleted external links to other subject matter, and you've suggested you will delete the entire page - just because you don't like the fact that someone has used and defined the term aquaphilia. There is plenty of evidence of use, verifiability and notability, but you keep deleting it. If that's not vandalism, what is? Tramlink 12:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In the circumstances, I suggest we call a truce on this and ask for a wikipedia:third Opinion Tramlink 12:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you didn't simplify my motivations. People add links to image galleries to pages I frequent all of the time- when I remove one because I think it is advertising, someone can argue with me. You're the first person that has voiced disagreement with me on this page, and you're assuming bad fatih? Also, you make it seem like all of those edits are removing links. I also had to re-word "external links" from "references" about five times, explaining what I did each time and getting no protest. Some other edits were adding a verify tag. Please calm down. There is no edit war here, in fact, there's scarcely a difference of opinion. It's the relevance of one link, which you still haven't addressed.

Look, I am being bold and protecting the relevancy of information on this page. My edits are not law, they are put up on wikipedia so that they can be changed if they aren't good enough or removed if they aren't relevant, and I read the discussion page so that we all can figure out what the end result should be. I have done nothing more than try to edit this page for the better, which is my right even if I'm not an enthusiast. Despite this hostility, I will continue to edit this page.Lotusduck 19:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your edits is that they seem primarily destructive. You've removed external links to non-commercial informative sites, you've blanked segments of text simply because you disagree with it. I am not claiming that Aquaphilia is a paraphilia - and the term was never used in that context, even by Phil Bolton - but it clearly is a fetish, and it's a term validly used to describe this type of underwater erotica. 89 goole links, including independent publishers, agree. If you know nothing about the subject, isn't it rather presumptive to say you'll continue to edit it? Lets bring it to a third party, and in the meantime lock the page Tramlink 21:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing image galleries and a few speculative unverifiable statements isn't really a cause for locking a page. I have done nothing but try to discuss with you. I never said I know nothing about the subject, and it's pretty not cool that you keep saying that about me. Wikipedia does not require expertise from it's editors, but if you want facts: Look at the definition of fetish: This is not arousal related to an object or a part or feature of a person. That seems pretty clear to me. But I have not put up or taken down anything on anyone's objection- I removed parts of the text for being unverifiable and speculative quite a while back, knowing anyone could argue for their validity if they wanted to. 90 percent of what I do on this page is discuss. Asking other people to help edit the page is a great idea, but locking the page because my edits are vandalism is a very sudden change of opinion on my edits because I removed your historical drowning prostitutes link recently. Personally, I don't think image galleries constitute informational sites, so in the past I have removed those. Even when sites make no money, people linking their personal galleries on wiki pages sometimes is advertising.

I believe that the procedure for addition to the oxford english dictionary is that words are tagged but not for addition to the dictionary in uses from websites and genre magazines. But even usage in a published magazine is not criteria for OED, though it is criteria for wikipedia. I understand that a term used in a special interest magazine, like a craft or fetish magazine must be used in several more widespread and general public source like The New York Times, and then is considered for inclusion in the Oxford English Dictionary. Just pasting that I have edited the article many times and argued that the external links are not references does not demonstrate that I am some vandal. There's an easier way to safeguard this page than locking the page, just follow policy and make this article verifiable through published sources. The external links and a google search for aquaphilia make the info on this page plausibly true, but see Wikipedia: Verifiability on this. Lotusduck 21:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

here we go again.

www.aquafans.com is NOT an image gallery - it's probably the place that most aquaphiles meet, and it's also the place where the contents and editing of this page are being discussed by those involved in th fetish.

http://www.dictionary.com defines a fetish as 3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification. Becoming sexually aroused by experiencing aquatic immersion, or seeing people with their eyes open underwater clearly meets that definition. Aquaphilia is a fetish.

The OED will accept a word that has the three criteria I stated earlier. there is a whole BBC programme about this at the moment - why not look it up http://www.bbc.co.uk/balderdash

There is no "plausibly" true about this page - peope are editing it and trying to improve it - but on many occasions, you have reverted the edit, not simply questioned it. given the 89 links, including external definitions, the subject is verifiable.

You say you do know something about aquaphilia. OK - so who is Phil Bolton? He's not me... who is Lauren, or Mustang?

If you are removing text, then as against simply deleting it, put it here so that the text can be discussed and improved. i'm happy to discuss my reasons and arguments for retention, and happy to listen to your arguments for deletion or editing - but not if all you do is delete without giving others a chance to improve. It's that deletion without discussion which I see as touching on bad faith and vandalism. Maybe I'm a bit up-tight, since this is my subject, but I'm trying to be even-handed - it doesn't feel like you are.

I hear what you say abotu "faux" paraphilia. please be assured that when this name was coined, it was not with the intention of trying to turn aquaphilia into a psych condition, but merely to describe the situation - that we are water-lovers in the most literal sense.

Finally - why are you relying on DSM 4/5? ICD 10 is the standard refernce text everywhere except in the US. since this is a worldwide project... should I add a smiley here?

User:Tramlink 23:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The drowning and mermaid transformation aspects of it would suggest that it is a fantasy rather than a fetish. The information on the page does not highlight water immersion as the object of a fetish, but rather terms aquaphilia as a category of fantasy. Make sense? Lotusduck 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I;ll agree on that point. Let me think about how I;ll rewrite that to emphasise the fetish element. As I'm sure you are aware, there is a fantasy element as well - clearly Aquaphiles don;t want to drown women just for sexual gratification... Tramlink 16:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, aquafans should REALLY be re-added to the links. It's not just an image gallery, like someone said. It has information on aquaphiles, a large, thriving community, and is a prime example of aquaphilia. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be a part of this article. -Jetman123 05:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

All wikipedia pages must be verifiable by a "reliable" published source- that's the policys' language, so see the guideline's definition of reliable. As WP:Verifiability states, this can under some circumstances be a insider organization, as in the example of a socialist magazine being used as a source for a page on socialism.

The links, while informative, are not published sources.

I myself have had absolutely no luck in finding a published source on the topic. Does anyone have an intention of finding a published source for the information on this article?

There is no question that all articles need verification by a published source- it is long standing policy.

So 89 different Google hits for Aquaphilia are worthless? Maybe I should ask the whole of Wikipedia to be deleted - after all, the whole idea of a Wikipedia only exists withn wikipedia...

Editors are trying to find verifiables, howabout letting them get on with it and stop threatening to delete their work.

While notability and verifiability are connected, they are different. A number of google hits is a neccessary thing for an article, for it's notability. Published sources are also neccessary. Wikipedia may seem like a big lovey-dovey consensus, but it isn't. All articles must be backed with verifiable facts. Show me an article with no references, and I'll show you a reference for it, or a deleted article. See Wikipedia: Verifiability please. Lotusduck 20:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My thinking is this - while you can get about a zillion Google hits on "unicorn" which I will readily admit demonstrates that the concept of "unicorn" exists, what that does NOT demonstrate is that "unicorns" are REAL. Getting 89 Google hits for "aquaphilia" demonstrates that the concept of "aquaphilia" exists but does not demonstrate that "aquaphilia" is "real", meaning the many hits are not verification that it's considered a legitimate, generally accepted by the mental health community, true fetish or paraphilia (if anyone is even claiming it's a paraphilia which no one seems to be). 21:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While verification is a goal, perhaps we could instead describe the topic as something more verifiable? Besides the etymology of the word section, this article describes Underwater Erotica. Surely we can find a source on that, right? Surely that's verifiable and notable, but then again, I might look into it and find that it's obscure and nobody cares. Hmm. Lotusduck 22:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have determined that I can write a good and verifiable article titled "Aquatic Erotica" a term used to describe the works of Vedder and others. However, such an article would have nothing to do with the current content of this article. Aquatic erotica gets about five thousand more google hits than 'aquaphilia'. I think only to aquaphilia forumites is there a clear distinction between the two. Aquatic Erotica would only contain information on notable artists and photographers, and probably nothing about the internet groups unless some published source discusses them. Is this acceptable? Lotusduck 22:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be fair to say that Aquaphilia is a form of underwater erotica... Perhaps just a DAB page or a redirect? Tramlink 11:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that Aquatic Erotica is a verifiable term, whereas everything written on Aquaphilia thus far is original research or based around an unpublished web journal. I also think that Aquaphilia is a small subgenre of Aquatic Erotica, and as such, the content on this page could be part of a sub-section on an Aquatic erotica page, if the content on this page fixed it's original research violation. Lotusduck 14:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK - I can agree with your feelings on this one, and I can also legitimately write a verifiable paragraph on the source of the decriptive term used by some Aquatic Erotica fetishists... which we can politely discuss in future. I'm all for deletion of thispage once that one exists. Tramlink 22:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So, you're going to write something verifiable through a published source then. Cool. What's the source? Lotusduck 04:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the scuba fetish page? Did some Philistine destroy it? It's stuff like this that will ruin Wikipedia--not many people will bother writing articles if some jerk keeps deleting them.

[edit] Welcome to the THUNDERDOME

Well, after all this time and arguing, and a little growing up, I have nominated this page for deletion. If you want this page to be saved, attribute it to a published source, although I have already tried and I think it's impossible. Another option is to write true things about aquatic erotica on this page and attribute them. That's sneaky! It might confuse people into thinking that the current usage of "aquaphilia" is attributable, just because something related that is put into the article is attributable. I've seen it before, and a lot of the perpetrators of this practice think that they are right in defending their neologism. If that's the way you want to go, visit your local library. One published source that talks (sort of) about aquatic erotica is Wet Paint: Herman Melville, Elihu Vedder, and Artists Undersea Charles C. Eldredge American Art, Vol. 11, No. 2. (Summer, 1997), pp. 106-135. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1073-9300%28199722%2911%3A2%3C106%3AWPHMEV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

mainly on page 129. Lotusduck 19:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well guys, you've been great. At least now we have a citation that Aquaphilia means a. Stalins preference to hydropower, b. a mans desire to white water raft and c. a fetish for swimsuit photography. The article will be changed to reflect this. Lotusduck 21:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)