Talk:Microphilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sheesh. This needs real sources cited. The next time this article is edited without adding sources (not advertisements) I will nominate it for deletion. Thanks. Lotusduck 01:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

How does lacking sources make something worthy of deletion? Worse yet, how does being edited change whether something is worthy of deletion? Threats aren't a good way to work with volunteers.--Prosfilaes 02:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am discouraging people adding their favorite fan-site info. It is a term with very low currency, and may be non-notable. All wikipedia articles must be sourced, it's an established standard. It isn't a threat, it's an attempt to deal with the massive amounts of articles of questionable notability- it might be a little too harsh to nominate them all for deletion immediately, so I nominate them after someone ignores my call for sources and just adds more original research. Wikipedia: No Original Research Lotusduck 02:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not add fan-site info? It shows evidence of the existance of the fetish. Just because something isn't cited, doesn't make it OR, and I don't see anything on cites in Wikipedia: No Original Research.

And it does read like a threat. It's of the form "if you do this thing which I don't like, I will take actions you don't like." If you said that "I question whether this article is notable, and I think it would help if there were sources demonstrating it's notability", then it would come across as less hostile.--Prosfilaes 04:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What? The second sentance is on citations, and says that they are neccessary to prove something isn't original research. Citing fan sites is the same thing as original research, as verifiability and no original research go hand in hand. If an outside source real published article or book doesn't talk about it, then it is neither notable nor verifiable. And yes, if you don't pay attention to policy, articles you care about will be deleted. People think that this isn't the case just because wikipedia can be constantly edited by anyone, but there are guidelines. Why is it worse to threaten the article rather than killing it outright, other than that it seems deserving of deletion? If I nominate articles for deletion, I need to give editors time to make the article encyclopedic and up to standards. But if I tell editors that there's a problem and give them a semi-unlimited time frame to fix it I'm threatening people? Guidelines for deletion: While it passes the google test somewhat, for a supposed sexual fetish there are no hits for "microphilia" on LexisNexis (global news database). There are no hits for microphilia on the American Psychological Associations database of articles, and 4 hits on google scholar that aren't about any fetish, but prefexes in species names. So while microphilia passes the google notability test, it utterly fails the verifiability test. Some articles that fail verifiability survive Articles for Deletion for one reason or another, but obviously since they violate policy, many do not. Now, if there is some obscure but published article from outside the microphilia community that I haven't heard of, then you or anyone else can add that and save this article, then nothing could be better. But it can't stay as is- you're mistaking hostile for being bold. Something needs to be done to make wikipedia better, I'm just telling you when I'm going to do it and giving you the chance to do it first if you feel like it. Goodness. Lotusduck 04:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"But if I tell editors that there's a problem and give them a semi-unlimited time frame to fix it I'm threatening people?" You're treating people as if you're their boss, as if it were your right to tell people they need to do something. Don't order people around; suggest fixes to the article.

It's verifiable. Look at the links. We don't need some psychologist to say that something exists that we can all take a look for ourselves.

I fail to see why articles from the microphilia community are excluded. It violates WP:NPOV, and who better than a microphile to know of its existance? We don't force other communities to justify their articles from outside sources.--Prosfilaes 05:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying "Who better than Billy Graham to write the Billy Graham article". If a microphile wrote an article that was published outside the community of course it would be valid. If Billy Graham wrote a book and published it with his own money, and no outside source ever wrote a thing about it, it's notability would obviously be questionable.

Using exclusively or even predominantly newsletters from Billy Grahams Evangelical organization to write the Billy Graham article is NPOV, excluding non-notable self published newsletters by and about Billy Graham is probably very point of view. The same applies here.

It does exist according to those links, and also according to those links it isn't notable at all. Those links don't even often use the term Microphilia, but instead SW, whatever that means.

Maybe it's a little dishonest for me to claim I'm going to fix something every time it shows up on my watch list. Perhaps I had better say "If this does not find published sources very soon, I will assume there aren't any, and nominate it for deletion for being non-verifiable"

I might suggest fixes to the article, if there were any indication that the article could be fixed.

Also, I am not your guide to wikipedia policies. Like when you said that there was nothing in No original research that talked about citing sources? Did you just miss the first paragraph somehow, or are you messing with me? Lotusduck 16:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the one site doesn't use the word microphilia. That doesn't change the subject it's talking about. The directory listing, however, does use the word microphilia. We could certainly use newsletters from the Billy Grahams Evangelical Organization for non-controversial factual information. If someone has a point of view on the subject from outside the community, we can cite it.

It's part of the human condition. It's not a transient organization or garage band. That makes it notable.

Yes, I missed the first paragraph of no original research. Good writing makes the first paragraph a preview of what's coming ahead, and doesn't stick information there which won't be followed by a further expansion later in the article.--Prosfilaes 16:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a neat little opinon of yours about transience being the definition of notability- but what about guidelines? What about verifiability, which is written in guidelines very clearly as needing outside published books or articles?

Articles do need cited sources from outside publishers, see verifiability on this. It is an official guideline, ignoring it is usually bad. And the sites don't discuss "the subject" besides. They don't tell people all about microphilia or SW or anything. There is some precedent for linking to fan sites when they provide an overview of some subject for non-fans. These links amount to using wikipedia as a fan directory. Lotusduck 17:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising

The links I just added are not advertising because I'm not trying to promote anything. They are links to sites that show the existance of the fetish in question. The Minimizer's Shrinking Site in particular has no ads and is not linked to anything commercial.--Prosfilaes 04:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are advertising, but links like those are generally considered advertising. It doesn't have to be commercial, personal sites or community sites can be advertised on wikipedia as well. But perhaps they are okay as external links- however they aren't at all references. References must be published by outside sources, like say a newspaper for example. Lotusduck 04:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The yahoo directory is probably a bad idea, wikipedia isn't just out to yahoo search for people. And while it isn't neccessary that external links be notable, they have to be at least informational. Neither of these is truly informational, it isn't even someones' forum or blog discussing microphilia, not saying that would be okay. The panty fetish article, I'm just guessing, doesn't have an external link to pictures of panties- even to a non-pornographic site. Yeah, I think both of those links are not okay. Lotusduck 05:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars are not welcome on Wikipedia. I've only been around for a few months and even I know that. Shame on both of you. However, I'm inclined to agree with Prosfilaes about the links. The Yahoo directory at least is useful to those interested in the subject. I'm not a fan of microphilia, but if that link was given in the article, I would have found it useful if I wanted to learn more. Lotusduck has a strange definition of advertising if the person who places the advertisement has nothing to gain by placing it. Please respect the possibility that edits may be made for no other reason than to help.

Since the external links issue has yet to be resolved, I'll let it be for now, but I'm restoring the bit about writing.com because it helps to illustrate this fetish's presense (small, yet noticeable and growing) online.

One more point I'd like to make: citing sources is obviously not essential on Wikipedia. How many articles have you seen that cite sources? Click "Random Article" a hundred times, and you'll probably find just one or none at all that do it. Citing sources is helpful, but in reality is rarely practical or necessary. I don't feel that this article needs sources cited (especially because it is a social issue, and like most social issues is difficult to pin down as "factual"), but I'll be cautious and leave the verification template up.

But in the future, please respect the three-revert rule. Five reverts is just pointless and a waste of everybody's time. -kotra 09:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The three-revert rule is per day. I don't see that either of us did anything reprimand worthy.--Prosfilaes 16:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand; the three-revert rule is per 24 hours. If it only applied for the day you yourself are in, then differences between time zones and your time of day would make the rule useless. That's why it applies to 24-hour periods as the rule states. There were 5 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is why I gave a reminder to respect the rule. And even it if wasn't a rule, reverting repeatedly more than 2 or 3 times is just a waste of everybody's time. -kotra 02:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Kotra- there are three policies that guide wikipedia, one of them is that we must cite sources. Wikipedia: Verifiability. Please familiarize yourself with it. Lotusduck 19:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And I guess WP:CIVIL is not one of those three policies.--Prosfilaes 21:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I meant to say that there are three content guiding policies. Are you accusing me of something? How coy. Lotusduck 21:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the verifiability policy. My point is that it is rarely followed word for word, and for a legitimate reason: it usually isn't practical to cite sources. But if you want to put a verification template on every article that doesn't cite sources, go ahead. You'll find yourself putting templates on almost every single Wikipedia article ever created. -kotra 02:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And then everyone would eventually be able to fact-check any article with ease. But the issue isn't that this is unreferenced, it really is unverified too. This article has at least some chance of being deleted, as I trying to verify it seems futile. I've mentioned various no-hits on several publications searches. Guidelines are often enough for AFD audiences. Lotusduck 20:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any argument about microphilia being a relatively obscure fetish. I wouldn't expect you to find any references to it in publications searches, but the same would be true of things like yiff and even hentai, which we know exist. Just because you can't find evidence of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But believe me, it does exist. Just like any "weird" sexual fetish, it's not very publicized, but if you delve into yiff and other sexual communities, you'll find it.

That paragraph makes me seem like a pervert, doesn't it? Well, just for the record, I'm not interested in microphilia or the related fetishes... but I have seen them in many contexts. -kotra 01:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I dissagree- plenty of reliable magazines talk about Hentai and Yiff, that's why they won't get deleted, not just because they exist. Verifiability through published sources is policy. Non-compliance with policy gets things deleted pretty regularly. Lotusduck 02:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What magazines are you talking about? Bizarre? Keep in mind that very few magazines are academic enough to be referenced in an encyclopedia, even Wikipedia. Two of these few might be Scientific American or The Economist. When you said "publications", I assumed you meant peer-reviewed journals, other academic publications, and certain newspapers. The few magazines that might talk about hentai or yiff aren't worthy for even considering sourcing for Wikipedia. Wikipedia strives to be objective, after all. -kotra 03:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, guidelines on referencing state that any magazine that is edited can be used, The Militant is used as an example. Clearly, it is not as academic as Scientific American. Articles in The Guardian on hentai or in Stuff Magazine on Yiff are reliable enough for the guidelines on Wikipedia: Verifiability as I see it. And all pages still need to be verifiable. Lotusduck 03:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The thing about commercial magazines like Stuff is that they are written to entertain, not to inform. Information presented in them is often exaggerated, incomplete, or just plain wrong, especially when dealing with somewhat obscure topics like yiff and hentai. I sincerely hope you don't get your information from such magazines. And I haven't been able to find a page that gives The Militant as an example of an acceptable source, although I did find this page which strongly cautioned against using sources with acknowledged extremist views, including the Socialist Worker's Party.

This is beside the point, however, which is that Microphilia is an obscure, but existing and known, fetish which deserves a short article, whether or not you personally had heard of it before. -kotra 05:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The section on the socialist party says that a paper by The Militant could be used to describe the Socialist Worker's Party. This means that basically any paper that has fact checking can be used. However, my arguments that you can find verifiable sources don't mean much. If you can't find verifiable sources, the article is unverifiable and in violation of policy. It's pretty simple. Lotusduck 22:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC

This debate boils down to a difference of opinion. You feel that the Wikipedia guidelines should be followed without exception, and when they cannot be followed, the article in question should be deleted (correct me if I'm wrong). In contrast, I feel that the guidelines are good advice that should be followed as much as possible, but not to the detriment of useful and accurate information. If you wish to put this article (or any others that you have issues about verifiability with) to a deletion vote, however, be my guest. After all, it's not your or my opinion that matters, but the opinion of the majority. -kotra 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I had thought of deleting this page. But while guidelines are suggestions, the 3 content guiding policies are hard and fast rules, if you don't like them, go to the policy page and talk about it there, but follow them. Please read WP: NOT- your last statement is troubling. Wikipedia is not a democracy or a consensus.Lotusduck 00:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said Wikipedia was a democracy or a consensus, although of course Wikipedia always strives for a consensus when resolving disputes. Voting on the deletion of an article, however, is an application of democracy. The What Wikipedia is not page recognizes this, and further adds that discussion should be the preferred method of coming to agreement, not voting. But if you want to put it to a vote, the opinion of the majority will decide (as I said earlier). That's how voting works. -kotra 02:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I follow. AFD forms on consensus, policies are prescribed but discussed- following policy and verifiability isn't especially meant to be argued over in individual articles. There is something perhaps worth keeping in this article, but I don't think it is what it should be. I think there's some possible re-write re-name or merge that can happen to incorporate this into a verifiable topic. But you're right, there's probably no harm in trying nominating for deletion first. Lotusduck 03:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! Whatever you do, though, remember to keep it NPOV. Although I'm sure you know that already 8) -kotra 04:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

But I reverse my previous stance on external links. Anyone can feel free to add image galleries, forums and non-informational sites to this page. I would revert it to that state myself, but then people would just accuse me of falsely trying to make this page seem like a fan-cruft list directory in order to get it deleted, y'know. Lotusduck 21:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] attribution

This article does not have any references, in particular by published sources as would be acceptable by policy. Google Scholar only returns things about ethnic medicines in french, y'know, they use the term but not at all how it is used here. Actually there is a short story written by an undergraduate at Florida State where a character uses the term as described here (almost) but in jest. http://dscholarship.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&context=undergrad

Microphilia is explicitly defined as a love of trivial things, a lack of good perspective here on page 59: 1. An Adventure with Words (in Enjoying Language) Paul F. Farmer The English Journal, Vol. 68, No. 5. (May, 1979), pp. 58-61. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-8274%28197905%2968%3A5%3C58%3AAAWW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1

In "The Book of Sex" by Steve Salerno a paragraph is devoted to "one of the rarer fetishes" saying that macrophiles collect doctored images that "look like stripped down barbie dolls come to life. Coincidence? Prob not."

Other than that we have nothing. This is essentially one citation, so unless someone else can find more, this article will be merged to Macrophilia. Lotusduck 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. NeoFreak 19:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Since nothing in this article is actually attributed, it should be blanked, and something from salerno put on the macrophilia page. Lotusduck 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)