Talk:Domestic discipline (lifestyle)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Comparison to BDSM?
It says Practicioners argue that domestic discipline is distinct from both domestic abuse, and activities such as erotic spanking and BDSM-style domination and submission.
But it's unclear to me how this differs from D/s relationships, other than in name. I note that originally (before I edited it) this said:
..and sexual activities such as erotic spanking and BDSM-style domination and submission.
which leads me to suspect that the original author assumed BDSM to be purely about using discipline for sexual/pleasurable purposes, and it's specifically these that DD is different from.
Perhaps something like: and activities such as erotic spanking and BDSM-style domination and sexual roleplay.? This would indicate what it differs from more specifically, without trying to imply there is some great difference between DD and D/S. Thoughts? Mdwh 01:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Practicioners of DD deny that "DD has anything in common with BDSM, abuse, master/slave relationships, erotic pain, or sexual play." Of course, it seems obvious to me that it has lots to do with the above, but we have to approach this from NPOV. — Matt Crypto 18:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion to delete page
I suggest deleting this page. The wording is POV. The statements are not supported with specific citations. The list of links may be considered pornography. --Coppertwig 22:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- That suggests fixing the wording, citing unsourced statements, and removing inappropriate links, and not necessarily deletion. What wording do you believe is POV? Which links do you think are inappropriate? — Matt Crypto 00:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the whole purpose of this article is to present a philosphy or viewpoint and suggestions as to how people might behave, not to present verifiable facts. The websites cited all also seem to be wholly or mostly for a similar purpose: I don't see facts or evidence in them, just philosophy, viewpoint and suggestions. Wikipedia is supposed to contain verifiable facts. See Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site". "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Wikipedia: Policies and Guidelines: "No original research ... Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; ..." "Verifiability ... Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." --Coppertwig 20:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- We can present verifiable facts about a philosophy or viewpoint -- that's indeed what we do for most philosophies and viewpoints on Wikipedia. The only real question, as far as I can see, is whether or not we can find suitable sources. — Matt Crypto 21:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I see two questions: can statements of fact be found, and can sources be found to verify those facts. The current article doesn't contain the sort of statements that can be verified -- just opinion-like statements, the sort of statements that don't belong in an encyclopedia. I don't think it's likely that either will be found. --Coppertwig 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think there are plenty of statements of fact: for example, "practitioners argue that domestic discipline is distinct from both domestic abuse, and activities such as erotic spanking and domination and submission": this could, reliable sources permitting, be verified -- practitioners do argue that. And so on. — Matt Crypto 22:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's hardly an alleged fact -- it's weasel words and hearsay, not the sort of verifiable fact appropriate to an encyclopedia. The mere fact that someone has said something, even if it can be verified that they said it, doesn't qualify it as encyclopedic material. See the guideline pages I quoted in my second comment above. --Coppertwig 11:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. If you're describing a specific belief or philosophy, it's OK to use the form, "adherents believe" and so forth -- it's just another way of describing the tenets of that belief or philosophy. See Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Exceptions: "When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion.". The third paragraph could do with some rewording, but the biggest problem I see here is one of finding reliable sources. — Matt Crypto 12:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sources is one problem. Point of view is another: if the article were to be salvaged, it would need material from the point of view of those who oppose this viewpoint. --Coppertwig 12:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed -- in fact, the initial stub for this article had two critical links out of three, so a negative viewpoint certainly exists. — Matt Crypto 14:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sources is one problem. Point of view is another: if the article were to be salvaged, it would need material from the point of view of those who oppose this viewpoint. --Coppertwig 12:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. If you're describing a specific belief or philosophy, it's OK to use the form, "adherents believe" and so forth -- it's just another way of describing the tenets of that belief or philosophy. See Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Exceptions: "When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion.". The third paragraph could do with some rewording, but the biggest problem I see here is one of finding reliable sources. — Matt Crypto 12:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's hardly an alleged fact -- it's weasel words and hearsay, not the sort of verifiable fact appropriate to an encyclopedia. The mere fact that someone has said something, even if it can be verified that they said it, doesn't qualify it as encyclopedic material. See the guideline pages I quoted in my second comment above. --Coppertwig 11:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think there are plenty of statements of fact: for example, "practitioners argue that domestic discipline is distinct from both domestic abuse, and activities such as erotic spanking and domination and submission": this could, reliable sources permitting, be verified -- practitioners do argue that. And so on. — Matt Crypto 22:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I see two questions: can statements of fact be found, and can sources be found to verify those facts. The current article doesn't contain the sort of statements that can be verified -- just opinion-like statements, the sort of statements that don't belong in an encyclopedia. I don't think it's likely that either will be found. --Coppertwig 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- We can present verifiable facts about a philosophy or viewpoint -- that's indeed what we do for most philosophies and viewpoints on Wikipedia. The only real question, as far as I can see, is whether or not we can find suitable sources. — Matt Crypto 21:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the whole purpose of this article is to present a philosphy or viewpoint and suggestions as to how people might behave, not to present verifiable facts. The websites cited all also seem to be wholly or mostly for a similar purpose: I don't see facts or evidence in them, just philosophy, viewpoint and suggestions. Wikipedia is supposed to contain verifiable facts. See Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site". "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Wikipedia: Policies and Guidelines: "No original research ... Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; ..." "Verifiability ... Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." --Coppertwig 20:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted some links
I deleted some links which seem to be merely blogs, discussion forums and entrances into similar websites, not providing any actual content on the page linked to. One of the remaining links may be broken. --Coppertwig 03:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Looks fine, from me too. If the other link doesn't come back soon just remove it. Femto 15:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine. We may want to keep http://lovingdd.blogspot.com/ -- it is a blog, but it seems particularly notable within its community. The most recent post at the moment discusses an interview forthcoming with Salon.com, which would be great for us -- we would get a reliable secondary source to use. — Matt Crypto 10:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hm. If blogs are the only references in this field, and if you must use a blog as source, at least remember to cite links to specific content, not just the main page. Femto 15:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was only suggesting having the blog as an external link, not as a source. — Matt Crypto 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- You can discuss all the potential sources you want, here on the talk page with other editors. In the article however the blog is just another link to be avoided per WP:EL. Femto 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- "You can discuss all the potential sources you want, here on the talk page with other editors" — OK, but I did know that already ;-) And indeed, we normally avoid blogs as external links, with good reason. I was suggesting that this may be a case where it may be useful to link to a blog as an external link. — Matt Crypto 07:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- You can discuss all the potential sources you want, here on the talk page with other editors. In the article however the blog is just another link to be avoided per WP:EL. Femto 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
