![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Medicalisation of sexuality appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 March 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The result was: promoted by
PrimalMustelid
talk
02:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Created by Darcyisverycute ( talk). Nominated by Mach61 ( talk) at 06:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Medicalisation of sexuality; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
The first sentence is supposed to "introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is... in plain English." Currently, it defines it in terms of medical authority, which is neither linked nor explained, and if linked wouldn't help because we have no such article. So in fact, the subject of the article is not really defined. Mathglot ( talk) 18:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I understand that @
Mach61 has tried cleaning up in effort to get the DYK approved, but what I am seeing in the edit history is indiscriminate sourced and unsourced content removal. I am sorry to of not been editing for a while, but I do feel disheartened seeing the edits that have been made in the meantime. Quoting
WP:V, Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references.
For most or all of the unsourced content removal there were supporting citations nearby which could have been checked which support the claim. Going over each issue individually, comparing the current revision to
[8] as a baseline:
- While it is fine to remove the WHO quote, it is not controversial at all and can be easily reattributed. A WHO definition can be sourced directly to the WHO, or to one of several secondary sources. About the source itself, I see now the journal shows up on Bealls list. Even with that aside it wasn't a strong source for the article, more supporting the other sources. The only other claim it was used to support was in the lead, It has affected sexology and sexual and reproductive health activism through legislation, funding and lobbying, and is also historically related to activism for sexual and reproductive rights.
. This statement is further discussed in line with
MOS:LEADNO in the history section. This review article
[9], which is the first result on a google scholar search for "world health organisation sexual health", is a high quality source for the mind-body dualism section definitions, it could also be expanded with this source.
- In the DYK nom that @
Sammi Brie wrote: the removed bit on the first paragraph, viagra motivating FSD research and DSM influence were uncited not due to lack of sources but to avoid citespam. Per WP:V, I didn't expect these claims to be challenged. Not every sentence needs a citation and I didn't consider the claims controversial. The supporting citation (Štulhofer 2015) is directly adjacent: Approved in 1998, Viagra® (sildenafil) became an instant bestseller and the prime treatment for erectile dysfunction (Rowland 2007). Similar drugs soon followed. The commercial success of sexual drugs for men prompted research into female sexual pharmacotherapy.
The BusinessWeek citation Mach61 added is not reliable for its claim as it was published only one month after Viagra released, and it is not a reliable source for medical claims.
- Regarding the claim Blanchard's theories were influential on the development of the DSM-3, DSM-4 and DSM-5
, I was under the impression this is well known information. But here is a source:
[10] Classification systems based on sexual orientation have served as typologies or specifiers for the diagnoses of transsexualism and GID in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM; APA, 1980, 1987, 1994, 2000), ever since these diagnoses entered the DSM in 1980.
You can also see
[11], as Blanchard is the person to coin the term autogynephilia which was directly adopted in the DSM, both of these sources cover the DSM-3 to 5 in detail.
- Regarding the mind-body dualism section that was removed by Mach61, the (Leonore 1996) citation is a good one and I think the section should be restored. I assume you read the source in your thorough search
[12], and the source writes: Numerous attempts have been made by psychologists and sexologists to challenge the mind-body split when it comes to sexuality. "It is naive to classify a sexual problem as either organic or nonorganic," wrote Wincze in 1982 (p. 257), and probably someone or other every 6 months since.
One such example of many perennial sources discussing mind-body dualism in medicalisation is (Štulhofer 2015), citation 1 in the article. The Leonore 1996 citation is particularly strong because the author did a followup article 14 years later (Leonore 2010). This person also has a Wikipedia article
Leonore Tiefer. Besides that, I don't understand your reasoning "A section one source does not make" to delete it, as I don't think this reasoning is based in P&Gs - there are plenty of situations I've come across where a single source is sufficient for small sections, especially when it is a review article.
- Regarding the definition of sexuality, if you read the original text closely, I was not trying to define sexuality: Sexuality is practiced and articulated in feelings, desires, beliefs, behaviors, fantasies, attitudes, practices, and relationships. Other factors to contributing to human sexuality include substance use affects sexual risk taking, and the proliferation of digital aspects to sexuality, such as internet pornography, cybersex and sexting.
This is supported by the source
[13]. Instead, I am summarising what relevant behaviors and factors are medicalised - the broad and nonspecific definition that Mach61 replaced it with since it "seems weird"
[14] has little encyclopedic value in context by comparison. Per
MOS:LEADNO, Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article.
(emphasis added) While I know cyber elements are not covered in body, it provides context and the potential for expansion.
- Contrary to what Sammi Brie says, I don't think there was close paraphrasing to begin with (this was the revision before Mach61's changes - Medicalisation of sexuality | Earwig's Copyvio Detector). I assume this is referring to the transgender section - WP:LIMITED applies to the terms GID, GIDC, AMAB, AFAB, and those were the only hits on earwig. Further, Mach61's edits to the section [15] is simply close parapharasing of what I wrote originally - it wouldn't fix an issue if there was one. When I wrote the article I even passed it through earwig myself to be sure there was no issue.
Darcyisverycute ( talk) 00:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
unlikely challenges occur all the time… they are actually quite likelyand that
subject matter experts are really BAD at determining how likely it is that a challenge will be made. With that being said, I think the reason I struggled so much with this article is that I'm used to finding sources for clearly-defined subjects, such as individual people, not more complicated cross-categories like this article. I'm sorry for any mistakes I made. Cheers, Mach61 ( talk) 06:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually.to be just removed from the lead (perhaps also bluelinking the word "sexuality" elsewhere in the lead) as the article doesn't discuss definitions of sexuality in the body and the sentence alone doesn't add much. I can understand the appeal for editing BLP articles by comparison and agree it can be more time consuming to work with broad concept articles, especially when sources disagree slightly on definitions in topics like sociology and psychology. Regarding "likely to be challenged", I am completely fine with adding citations next to challenged statements, and concur that relatively speaking, I'm a poor estimate of what might be challenged. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 05:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Medicalisation of sexuality appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 March 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The result was: promoted by
PrimalMustelid
talk
02:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Created by Darcyisverycute ( talk). Nominated by Mach61 ( talk) at 06:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Medicalisation of sexuality; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
The first sentence is supposed to "introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is... in plain English." Currently, it defines it in terms of medical authority, which is neither linked nor explained, and if linked wouldn't help because we have no such article. So in fact, the subject of the article is not really defined. Mathglot ( talk) 18:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I understand that @
Mach61 has tried cleaning up in effort to get the DYK approved, but what I am seeing in the edit history is indiscriminate sourced and unsourced content removal. I am sorry to of not been editing for a while, but I do feel disheartened seeing the edits that have been made in the meantime. Quoting
WP:V, Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references.
For most or all of the unsourced content removal there were supporting citations nearby which could have been checked which support the claim. Going over each issue individually, comparing the current revision to
[8] as a baseline:
- While it is fine to remove the WHO quote, it is not controversial at all and can be easily reattributed. A WHO definition can be sourced directly to the WHO, or to one of several secondary sources. About the source itself, I see now the journal shows up on Bealls list. Even with that aside it wasn't a strong source for the article, more supporting the other sources. The only other claim it was used to support was in the lead, It has affected sexology and sexual and reproductive health activism through legislation, funding and lobbying, and is also historically related to activism for sexual and reproductive rights.
. This statement is further discussed in line with
MOS:LEADNO in the history section. This review article
[9], which is the first result on a google scholar search for "world health organisation sexual health", is a high quality source for the mind-body dualism section definitions, it could also be expanded with this source.
- In the DYK nom that @
Sammi Brie wrote: the removed bit on the first paragraph, viagra motivating FSD research and DSM influence were uncited not due to lack of sources but to avoid citespam. Per WP:V, I didn't expect these claims to be challenged. Not every sentence needs a citation and I didn't consider the claims controversial. The supporting citation (Štulhofer 2015) is directly adjacent: Approved in 1998, Viagra® (sildenafil) became an instant bestseller and the prime treatment for erectile dysfunction (Rowland 2007). Similar drugs soon followed. The commercial success of sexual drugs for men prompted research into female sexual pharmacotherapy.
The BusinessWeek citation Mach61 added is not reliable for its claim as it was published only one month after Viagra released, and it is not a reliable source for medical claims.
- Regarding the claim Blanchard's theories were influential on the development of the DSM-3, DSM-4 and DSM-5
, I was under the impression this is well known information. But here is a source:
[10] Classification systems based on sexual orientation have served as typologies or specifiers for the diagnoses of transsexualism and GID in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM; APA, 1980, 1987, 1994, 2000), ever since these diagnoses entered the DSM in 1980.
You can also see
[11], as Blanchard is the person to coin the term autogynephilia which was directly adopted in the DSM, both of these sources cover the DSM-3 to 5 in detail.
- Regarding the mind-body dualism section that was removed by Mach61, the (Leonore 1996) citation is a good one and I think the section should be restored. I assume you read the source in your thorough search
[12], and the source writes: Numerous attempts have been made by psychologists and sexologists to challenge the mind-body split when it comes to sexuality. "It is naive to classify a sexual problem as either organic or nonorganic," wrote Wincze in 1982 (p. 257), and probably someone or other every 6 months since.
One such example of many perennial sources discussing mind-body dualism in medicalisation is (Štulhofer 2015), citation 1 in the article. The Leonore 1996 citation is particularly strong because the author did a followup article 14 years later (Leonore 2010). This person also has a Wikipedia article
Leonore Tiefer. Besides that, I don't understand your reasoning "A section one source does not make" to delete it, as I don't think this reasoning is based in P&Gs - there are plenty of situations I've come across where a single source is sufficient for small sections, especially when it is a review article.
- Regarding the definition of sexuality, if you read the original text closely, I was not trying to define sexuality: Sexuality is practiced and articulated in feelings, desires, beliefs, behaviors, fantasies, attitudes, practices, and relationships. Other factors to contributing to human sexuality include substance use affects sexual risk taking, and the proliferation of digital aspects to sexuality, such as internet pornography, cybersex and sexting.
This is supported by the source
[13]. Instead, I am summarising what relevant behaviors and factors are medicalised - the broad and nonspecific definition that Mach61 replaced it with since it "seems weird"
[14] has little encyclopedic value in context by comparison. Per
MOS:LEADNO, Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article.
(emphasis added) While I know cyber elements are not covered in body, it provides context and the potential for expansion.
- Contrary to what Sammi Brie says, I don't think there was close paraphrasing to begin with (this was the revision before Mach61's changes - Medicalisation of sexuality | Earwig's Copyvio Detector). I assume this is referring to the transgender section - WP:LIMITED applies to the terms GID, GIDC, AMAB, AFAB, and those were the only hits on earwig. Further, Mach61's edits to the section [15] is simply close parapharasing of what I wrote originally - it wouldn't fix an issue if there was one. When I wrote the article I even passed it through earwig myself to be sure there was no issue.
Darcyisverycute ( talk) 00:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
unlikely challenges occur all the time… they are actually quite likelyand that
subject matter experts are really BAD at determining how likely it is that a challenge will be made. With that being said, I think the reason I struggled so much with this article is that I'm used to finding sources for clearly-defined subjects, such as individual people, not more complicated cross-categories like this article. I'm sorry for any mistakes I made. Cheers, Mach61 ( talk) 06:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually.to be just removed from the lead (perhaps also bluelinking the word "sexuality" elsewhere in the lead) as the article doesn't discuss definitions of sexuality in the body and the sentence alone doesn't add much. I can understand the appeal for editing BLP articles by comparison and agree it can be more time consuming to work with broad concept articles, especially when sources disagree slightly on definitions in topics like sociology and psychology. Regarding "likely to be challenged", I am completely fine with adding citations next to challenged statements, and concur that relatively speaking, I'm a poor estimate of what might be challenged. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 05:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)