Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphilia and gynephilia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Androphilia and gynephilia

Androphilia and gynephilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and long unsourced, despite multiple searches; content belongs in Sexual orientation — James Cantor (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have just added sourcing. Jokestress (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sexual orientation (of course). "Androphilia" (the sexual attraction to men) and "gynephilia" (the sexual attraction to women) are both perfectly legitimate terms and are indeed used by RS's. The combination of the terms, however, is WP:OR, and the content is "sexual orientation." By analogy, Acid and Base are pages, but Acid and Base is a redirect to Ph. The cites Jokestress added are examples of uses of the individual words, which is not the issue. ("Acid" and "base" are used by experts, but do not establish "acid and base" as a topic independent of Ph.) Finally, Jokestress' edits also claim on that mainpage that I personally have been advocating for other terms, which is both demonstrably incorrect and a BLP violation, as I already indicated there.— James Cantor (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article is about a notable debate in psychology regarding terminology. For several decades, there has been a push to use androphilic and gynephilic as alternatives to homosexual and heterosexual, especially when discussing sex and gender minorities. As an example of the problem, some psychologists use the term "homosexual transsexual" to describe what others call a "heterosexual transsexual." To avoid this confusion, Ron Langevin proposed androphilia and gynephilia in the 1980s. Since then, many scholars have discontinued use of terms like "homosexual transsexual." One exception is the nominator of this AfD, User:James Cantor, who used the term in his most recent published work in Archives of Sexual Behavior (cited in the article). This article has been included in the transgender sidebar as a key topic for quite some time. The debate should certainly be covered at sexual orientation, but there is too much published on the debate to paste all this into that article. It should be mentioned in summary style with a pointer to the main article. Jokestress (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what User:James Cantor (aka James Cantor) published earlier this month on this very topic: "Blanchard’s prediction follows from studies that have repeatedly shown that the homosexual male-to-female transsexuals are "female-shifted" in multiple, sexually dimorphic characteristics, whereas the heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals are not (Blanchard, 1989a, 1989b). For example, homosexual male-to-female transsexuals are sexually attracted to natal males, express greater interest in female-typical activities (even in childhood), and are naturally effeminate in mannerism. In contrast, heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals are indistinguishable from nontranssexual natal males on these variables. The heterosexual transsexuals are still distinct from typical males in other ways, however, such as by manifesting "autogynephilia"—the erotic interest in or sexual arousal in response to being or seeming female. The consistent detection of cross-sex features among homosexual male-to-female transsexuals, but not among heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals, led Blanchard to predict that the cross-sex pattern would also emerge at the level of brain anatomy and be limited to the homosexual male-to-female transsexuals. That prediction now appears to be the case, with Rametti et al. (2010) supporting his prediction for the homosexual transsexuals, and Savic and Arver (2010), for the heterosexual transsexuals." (Source: James Cantor (2011). New MRI Studies Support the Blanchard Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9805-6 [emphasis mine]). The suppressed sentence introduces the debate. It summarizes the most recent publication that uses the older terminology, as used by two of the most prominent people using the old terminology. Jokestress (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Suppressed?" "Bogus?" "Old terminology?"
As I have pointed out already (several times), I use both terminologies, but Jokestress keeps citing my use of one and not the other (despite being obviously aware that I do, in fact, use both). That is the definition of half-truth. As for the terminology being "old," the already-posted google search showed: The heterosexual/homosexual terminology outnumbers the androphilic/gynephilic terminology at about 50:1.
"heterosexual transsexual" 6,870 hits [1]
"homosexual transsexual" 17,900 hits [2]
"gynephilic transsexual" 75 hits [3] (Interestingly, "autogynephilic transsexual" gets 1,570 hits.[4])
"androphilic transsexual" 236 hits [5]
It is Jokestress who prefers androphilia/gynephilia (which is fine), but very obviously not the RS's. This is a simple case of someone who believes one set of terms is more politically correct over another, but is playing a series of rhetorical dirty tricks to falsely convince other editors that hers is the majority one.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This long-running debate on terminology is about scientific accuracy, not merely political correctness. Dismissing this as some sort of silly PC matter is a half-truth. To my knowledge, James Cantor has never published anything employing the terms androphilic transsexual or gynephilic transsexual. If there's a source, we can add it. Since he is one of the holdouts who uses the older terminology extensively to describe trans people (see above), I again question the propriety of his attempts to suppress information about this debate on Wikipedia. It strikes me as textbook conflict of interest. Jokestress (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So Jokestress writes "To my knowledge, James Cantor has never published anything employing the terms androphilic transsexual..." Meanwhile, on her very own attack site about me, Jokestress keeps copies of me using exactly that terminology: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/james-cantor.html. Er, laugh test, anyone?
As for propriety: Yes, do please bring this to COI/N or other appropriate forum. I think it would be interesting to see someone try to argue that I publish something, make it downloadable for free, but then immediately try to suppress it instead of trying to get it more publicity. This is a shiver looking for a spine to run up.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the misstatement above. I'd forgotten about the trade newsletter. Jokestress (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If there actually were a notable debate, we would have RS's saying so instead of Jokestress' just saying so (again). Also, Jokestress would not have to be fabricating information about me (or anyone else). I have actually used both the heterosexual/homosexual terminology and the androphilia/gynephilic terminology in my writings. (If there's a better indicator of neutral, no one has described what it might be.) Nonetheless, the issue is what the RS's say, not what Jokestress' well-documented harassment of scientists she dislikes says, which includes, I repeat, BLP violations.— James Cantor (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a well-sourced debate in psychology. As Anil Aggrawal writes (cited in the article), the terminology androphilia and gynephilia "is needed to overcome immense difficulties in characterizing the sexual orientation of transmen and transwomen. For instance, it is difficult to decide whether a transman erotically attracted to males is a heterosexual female or a homosexual male; or a transwoman erotically attracted to females is a heterosexual male or a lesbian female. Any attempt to classify them may not only cause confusion but arouse offense among the affected subjects. In such cases, while defining sexual attraction, it is best to focus on the object of their attraction rather than on the sex or gender of the subject." See the article for several other psychologists saying the same thing. Jokestress (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I worked on this article in it's beginning when it was a stub and in a much worse state than it is now. The issue is obviously well sourced and discussed by notable people in the field of human sexuality. If something as small as LiveJasmin is deemed notable enough to deserve having it's own article, I don't see why this discussion in the field of psychology/sexuality/linguistics which whole books have been written of should be deleted. Speedy keep because the nomination appears to be mostly an editing dispute, and also because the proposer wants the information moved rather than deleted and no one else so far wants the article deleted. James Cantor, please resolve your dispute over this article and don't propose the deletion of a valid wikipedia topic just to make a point (WP:POINT).Kyle112 (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With all due respect for Kyle112 to have an opinion, that doesn't actually address the issue. Simply declaring an issue "well sourced" doesn't make it so. If there were indeed any reference that discussed "androphilia and gynephilia" at all, Klye would be citing it rather than telling readers what to think...effective only if no one actually checks. Regarding whether this is an editing dispute: Again, typing out a statement does not make it true. The talk page shows, quite clearly, that the issue has repeatedly been that there is not a single RS covering this topic, and the repeated failure of anyone to produce any, despite multiple requests over months. If this actually were over any particular edit(s), Kyle would be citing those edits rather than telling readers what to think...effective only if no one actually checks.— James Cantor (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even in just my comment above I have provided a published source that uses the term. Yes, the title is 'Androphilia', but if you read the book he does make a passing mention of gynephilia. Even if you some how manage to discount that, the point is moot. You have nominated this article for deletion, not for merging or splitting.Kyle112 (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Kyle112 too makes my point for me: "if you read the book he does make a passing mention of gynephilia." That's the very problem: All of the cites provided provide only a passing mention, failing WP:GNG. We can, of course, also have the merge discussion, but no one has presented here any support that would be any more valid there. Despite the various distractions asserted, no one has named a single cite support the phrase as a phrase independent of sexual orientation. Indeed, folks have only been naming cites that, when actually read, instead support a redirect.— James Cantor (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pointing out that you are trying to support a redirect and not a deletion is not an ad hominem, is not making a point for your case, and isn't WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You nominated this article for DELETION, but all you have been discussing is merging the data into other articles, splitting the article, redirecting to another article, and your problems with the contents. These are alternatives to deletion, NOT deletion. I really hope you are not like this in your academic works. Kyle112 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 1. Really, that's it? No mention that you yourself observed that the so-called support really was just a "passing mention" (your words) instead of "significant coverage"? Just another change of subject, hoping no one notices?
2. I said challenging my arguments were ad hominems? No, it's things like "I really hope you are not like this in your academic works" that are ad hominems.
3. From WP:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion:
"Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions"
"Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed"
"Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline"
all of which I have noted quite specifically. Merge etc. are indeed quite reasonable alternatives, and my willingingness to consider them would, by outside editors, generally be acknowledged as an example of cooperative editing. Moreover, the alternatives are alternatives; none is written as a requirement. This argument is just another evasion, this time by wiki-lawyering, distracting from the conspicuous and prolonged absence of any RS to support the mainpage as a topic.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I would love to go into why the subject is significant enough to have it's own article, this page is about deletion, and no one else has wanted a deletion. This is not "wikilawyering", this is me merely pointing out that you have nominated an article for deletion even though you yourself find the content notable enough to keep, and no one else has wanted a deletion. I would be happy to have a merging or redirecting discussion with you in the appropriate forum. Nominating an article for deletion and then saying something like "I will be generous and toss you a merge/split" is inappropriate, and not how a merge or split should be handled. YOU made this page about deletion, not me.Kyle112 (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm...let me make sure I understand you correctly. You are saying, on the one hand, that "this page is about deletion", but on the other hand that you refuse to discuss "why the subject is significant enough to have it's own article"...even though that that's exactly what WP:Notability is about and that "Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted? Is that what you just wrote?— James Cantor (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a strawman fallacy. I am saying that the subject is notable and this is beyond dispute, and whether it should be merged or split is not the same discussion as whether it should be deleted. Kyle112 (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
  • Comment. That's a weird article history: Two-thirds of it has been repeatedly removed on BLP grounds, and repeatedly restored, with the (claimed) BLP problems basically being brushed aside. Doubtless the restoration is a strategically useful response to the threat of deletion, because, in practice, AFD almost never deletes articles that names a couple of dozen sources, even if the sources don't say anything significant—or even at all—about the subject (so few editors bother to find out what the sources actually say), but it might be worth looking at both of the versions.
    I have not formed an opinion on what we should do with this page; it will require spending some time with the sources, to see how much of this might be a string of tiny, passing mentions or sources substantiating tangential points vs the significant, in-depth, independent, secondary sources that GNG requires. As a general point, however, I'd like to call the existence of WP:Proposed mergers to the attention of the nom: Merge-and-redirect discussions do not need to take place at AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The alleged BLP issues have not been described. Once they are, they can be addressed if needed. It's certainly no reason to remove dozens of sources and quotations that have nothing to do with the alleged BLP issue (whatever it may be). Jokestress (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Jokestress' above description does not accurately reflect the discussion, which is available to the interested editor on the article's talkpage. Indeed, this subthread would be more appropriate to the article's talkpage than here. (And what, exactly, did I write in 1989?)— James Cantor (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The terms are used in a number of reliable sources and are notable individually; combining the discussion of these parallel terms in an article discussing their origins, application, and context is not novel in Wikipedia articles on sexuality.
Here are examples of two similar pairs of parallel terms used in sexology; these terms are addressed in parallel in just one Wikipedia article for each pair:
Autoandrophilia and Autogynephilia are both redirected to Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia
and
Andromimetophilia and Gynemimetophilia are both redirected to Transfan.
Moreover, these articles address the overall context in which those terms have been used... as this one does. (Neither one of those articles is currently Wikilinked in Sexual orientation, as this article is). -- bonze blayk (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User:James Cantor, I could not disagree with you more strongly. The actual content of those articles, as opposed to their mere titles, deal almost solely with the terms which I noted as having been redirected towards them. If one reviews the history of those pages, one can see that as they evolved they were merged from originally separate articles, with titles based on each of the formal diagnostic labels, into one article with a new title.
Is the article title "Blanchard's Transsexualism Typology" - Google Scholar a term supported by any reliable sources as a phrase in and of itself? I see none.
And as far as I can tell, Transfan is not exactly what one might prefer as a WP:RS sourced title for a Wikipedia article... especially since the slang word "transfan" has ZERO citations provided in the entire article? (Do check out transfan - Google Scholar... I personally find the results for "trans-fan" most droll w/r/t the predominant results interpreted w/r/t "Sexual orientation" .-) -- bonze blayk (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bonze continues to prove my points for me:
1. Those articles (Autoandrophilia, etc.) are redirects to the broader pages, exactly as I am saying should be done with redirecting androphilia and gynephilia to sexual orientation. (Incidentally, redirect pages don't really have any content of their own; they exist essentially only as their titles.)
2. Bonze is exactly correct that "Blanchard's Transsexualism Typology" is not supported by any reliable sources. I disagree with that page name for exactly that reason. I suggest instead using "Blanchard typology of male-to-female transsexualism," which does indeed appear in RS's.
3. I agree with Bonze also that transfan is merely another slang neologism, whereas WP should instead use the scientific/formal terms, in this case being gynandromorphophile.
It is unfortunate that Bonze's reflex to disagree causes so much, if hollow and unfocused, dissent. We're actually in tune on very much.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Acknowledging once again that you are entitled to your opinion (especially as the page's creator someone who has "worked on this article in it's beginning"), can you be a little more specific than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Indeed, repeated declarations in the absence of any specifics suggests there are no specifics to be had.— James Cantor (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And since this seems unclear, using a term like homosexual transsexual that will "arouse offense" (per Aggrawal above) and using a preferred term in equal measure is not being "neutral." Someone who uses a racial slur half the time (or even once) would not be considered "neutral" in their utterances about race. Ask Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, etc. This terminology is a well-sourced concept that experts in sexuality have discussed for decades. It's clear from the sources it's not considered neutral to use "archaic" and "confusing" terms any more. When people are expressing regret for having used homosexual transsexual and what-not, as Kinsey Institute former head John Bancroft has (see article), those who continue to use such problematic language "have completely failed to appreciate the implications of alternative ways of framing sexual orientation" (Jordan-Young, cited in article). It didn't take long to find dozens of experts who discussed the concept, the terminology, the debate, and the handful of holdouts in their published works, all cited in the article. Jokestress (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (1) These words are used "almost always in tandem"??? Jokestress is so far off in her claims about the terms, I can only give the numbers themselves. These are the hits from the obvious google searches:
androphilia OR gynephilia: 777,000 hits [7]
androphilia AND gynephilia: 16,800 hits [8]
androphilia WITHOUT gynephilia: 747,000 hits [9]
gynephilia WITHOUT androphilia: 14,200 hits [10]
That is, depite Jokestress declaring (on the basis of what, she didn't say...) that these words are "almost always" used in tandem, they are actually used in tandem about 2.2% of the time: 16,800/(747,000+14,200+16,800). That is, they are used alone 97.8% of the time. "Androphilia" has long been used almost exclusively with regard to male homosexuality, and "gynephilia" was used almost exclusively to differentiate attraction to adults from attraction to children (that such attractions would be to females was usually assumed). There have, of course, been multiple other uses, always with regard to sexual orientation, not gender identity, as the frankly extreme WP:UNDUE of the mainpage revealingly suggests. Morevoer, Jokestress' own cites also make my point for me: For example, Androphilia, A Manifesto: Rejecting the Gay Identity, is about androphilia, not androphilia and gynephilia and is itself a counterexample that the topics are joined.
(2) That Jokestress, or any other self-proclaimed activist, has a clear preference for what should be deemed politically correct does not an RS or a revision of history make. As for Ron Langevin or Blanchard, or anyone else, what exactly is the argument here? If Langevin and Blanchard disagreed over this (which is fine), how does saying I am linked to both suggest I am biased? Indeed, since I am the only one in the bunch (including Jokestress) who has used both terminologies (and others), it would seem that I would be the least likely to have a bias. (Activists, by definition, are the ones who push for a specific agenda. Scientists are the ones who typically adjust language according to whether they are addressing the public or other scientists.)
(3) Jokestress' emphasis on what she finds offensive is, of course, the real issue. The page is very clearly not about either androphilia or gynephilia or their combination. It is about what terms Jokestress and some other activists (on and off WP) want to be accepted as the politically correct ones (and to misrepresent and defame with any means available folks who disagree).
(4) There is no shortage of debates and controversies in sexology, and they are easy to recognize. There are letters-to-editors of journals about such issues, but there are none for this issue. There are debates held at scholarly conferences, but there are none for this issue. Various experts respond directly to each others' statements (not merely source terms to them), but not for this issue. No evidence has any been cited that this is an issue at all. Cited references do not contain the information they are used to justify, and the off-hand descriptions of the state of the literature are easily shown to be wild fabrications. Jokestress' various insinuations about me (consisting of what scholars of rhetoric call "the association fallacy") are obvious distractions from the repeated failure to answer what I have said from the beginning: There are no RS's to support this combination of terms as a topic unto itself. It is a WP:SYNTH, consisting of WP:OR (and misinformation) to use WP for WP:ADVOCACY, trying to apply passing mentions somehow as "significant coverage".
For emphasis, I don't at all oppose the terms themselves (despite Jokestress' inability or unwillingness to guess my views accurately). While I'm on my own views, Jokestress has, on her own, already changed the page from erroneously saying that I have been "promoting" terms since 1989 to erroneously saying that I have been "using" the term since 1989. A cite for that, please? Jokestress claim on this is no more accurate than her other fabrications. (I hadn't even started psychology in 1989, never mind wrote on sexuality issues.)
— James Cantor (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First, androphilia has multiple uses; hence its more frequent use. Also, gynephilia has three major spelling variants, so the statistics above are quite misleading. Second, the article is replete with published work where the controversy is acknowledged, where scientists have shifted from the older terms, and where academic peers criticize the holdouts who refuse to follow suit. Just because James Cantor and friends continue to use a less scientific term like "homosexual transsexual," which is deprecated among colleagues and widely considered offensive among the communities they are paid to serve, doesn't mean Wikipedia should suppress an article discussing this controversy to appease him. The article obviously stands on its own merits. This single-handed attempt to suppress this article on Wikipedia five years after it was created is part of a pattern of long-term WP:COI edits to promote the work and ideas of James Cantor and friends over those of his academic rivals. That's why he's been blocked in the past for editing the biography of a rival. Jokestress (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having already shown multiple, very large errors on Jokestress' part, it's hard to take seriously any continued claims, all still lacking any evidence beyond Jokestress' own keyboard: The problem is spelling variants? So, where are her data using other spelling variants? My friends and I all use what, exactly? Any refs for who my friends are, other than more "fallacy by association"? Next, still no response to the illogic that I am somehow biased even though "my friends" are disagreeing with each other? Next, I am paid to serve someone? Really? Any evidence for that one? Next, I was blocked...why? So, this discussion doesn't exist? (You know, the discussion that pretty uniformly indicated the admin was in error for blocking me, that I had no COI problem, and that the admin instituted the block at your personal instigation.) LOL So, any more half-truths to share? Remember, the sky's the limit when you're making things up and hoping no one checks. Still, so where is this reference about what I allegedly wrote in 1989?— James Cantor (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Jokestress says: "It didn't take long to find dozens of experts who discussed the concept, the terminology, the debate, and the handful of holdouts in their published works". But google says:
"heterosexual transsexual" 6,870 hits [11]
"homosexual transsexual" 17,900 hits [12]
"gynephilic transsexual" 75 hits [13] (Interestingly, "autogynephilic transsexual" gets 1,570 hits.[14])
"androphilic transsexual" 236 hits [15]

That is, despite Jokestress' best efforts to convince readers that her preference is the dominant preference, anyone who bothers to check her claims can find exactly the opposite of what she says: The phrase gynephilic/androphilic transsexual is used about 1.2% as often as the phrase heterosexual/homosexual transsexual. This is not to say that there is any problem with using gynephilic/androphilic, but the state of affairs is simply the exact opposite of what Jokestress is telling us. Again.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Okay, so I performed the same searches as before, using the other two spelling variants, which Jokestress said was the reason my aformentioned results were "quite misleading." Well, instead of Jokestress' use being a 2.2% minority when using “gynephilia”, it worked out to be a 0.95% minority when using "gynophilia," and 0.029% minority when using "gynecophilia":
androphilia OR gynophilia 782,000 hits [16]
androphilia AND gynophilia 7,500 hits [17]
androphilia WITHOUT gynophilia 758,000 hits [18]
gynophilia WITHOUT androphilia 24,800 hits [19]
7,500 / (7,500 + 758,000 + 24,800) = 0.0095
androphilia OR gynecophilia 795,000 hits [20]
androphilia AND gynecophilia 224 hits [21]
androphilia WITHOUT gynecophilia 760,000 hits [22]
gynecophilia WITHOUT androphilia 475 hits [23]
224 / (224 + 760,000 + 475 ) = 0.000294
So, Jokestress, since the alternate spellings were even less in your favor than the original ones, why did you say that the alternate spellings made my statement “quite misleading”? I mean, you either checked for the real answer before you said anything, or you didn't. If you checked, then why did you say otherwise here? If you didn't check first, then you just...what, made up a fact? Jokestress, I’m sure you have a better explanation: On what basis did you tell people that the alternative spellings made my results "quite misleading"? Clerical error, maybe?
— James Cantor (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We are not here to solve the dispute about what would be the correct term to label people, we are here to document each and all notable concepts. When words get over 700,000 hits (see above), it is notable. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, I agree entirely that "We are not here to solve the dispute about what would be the correct term." So, to follow that reasoning: As the above searches showed, only 2.2% of the search results use "androphilia and gynephilia," with 97.8% using the very term Jokestress (and some other editors and activists) oppose (which is not a problem). Clearly, it is the use of the (findge?) minority term that is the neutrality problem, not my suggestion to go with 97.8% of the search result.
2. Kim's comment suggests another incomplete/misreading of the facts. Although Kim says "see above", the above does not say that "androphilia and gynephilia" got over 700,000 hits. The searches say that androphilia got over 700,000 hits (and a page on androphilia itself would be just fine). The searches that included both androphilia and gynephilia are a very small proportion, and despite my oft repeated requests, no one has been able to produce a single RS supporting the term as a term. Incidentally, Kim, the searches above are clearly labeled...in triplicate; it's not clear to me how you got it wrong anyway. Clerical error, maybe?— James Cantor (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. 39 refs at the moment, so neither unsourced nor (as indicated by the presence of RS's) non-notable. Thus the reasons given by the nominator are irrelevant. Furthermore, the nominator himself is developing a competing article of his own on this topic[24], making this a clear case of Speedy Keep 2.4.. Edit disputes don't belong at AFD. This isn't the place. BitterGrey (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. 39 refs at the moment, so neither unsourced nor (as indicated by the presence of RS's) non-notable. (And please don't bicker about the count - they are clearly numbered.) BitterGrey (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment. With bots like that, who needs editors? Do you have anything to say about the content of those refs, Bittergrey? Anything that would suggest you read them, and can verify that they actually say anything in support of the page content? As the above searches demonstrate, the words appear hundreds of thousands of time in the literature, but never provide the information that is being presented on the mainpage. So, of these 39, which one(s) exactly is it that provides "significant coverage" of the topic, rather than some passing mention?— James Cantor (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note' I struck this User:Bittergrey has already voted.Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)*Still Speedy Keep Still Keep.[reply]
I think that was plainly clear from the indentation and the wording, "_Still_ Speedy Keep". Any excuse to obscure an opponent's comment...BitterGrey (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your not my opponent. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we can drop the smarter-than-thou stance and look a the top of the page, we will see that this a _deletion_ discussion: Not a merger proposal, not an edit discussion, but a call to wipe the entire article off the face of Wikipedia. James, if you have issues with the details of the article, take them up on the article's talk page, NOT WP:AFD.
James, as I recall, the last ref that you used and that we discussed was an inference based on argument from silence, after rejecting the author's opposing conclusion. This sets an extremely low bar as far as RS's are concerned.
Finally James, please keep in mind that I'm commenting here because of your invite, posted to WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. BitterGrey (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree, you put this article up for deletion. It is quite obvious the words are used in the literature, so this is either about merging or about wrong information. Either way, you putting this article up for deletion is either WP:POINT or WP:RUBBISH. Kyle112 (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am very happy to respond to any and all comments; however, in order to have a productive conversation, I suggest taking a moment to re-read WP:AGF. Although editors are entitled to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, when an editor receives (multiple) requests to support a claim with an RS's, but responds only with more WP:IDONTLIKEIT, increasingly peppered with ad hominems, then otherwise noninvolved readers quickly come to the obvious conclusion that there actually are no RS's to support your point and only evasion and distraction tactics are left. If you believe I have acted inappropriately, do bring the claim to AN/I or other appropriate forum. I believe having other uninvolved editors reading this page would be quite beneficial.— James Cantor (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming majority of those 39 sources are WP:PRIMARY sources, which don't "count" for notability. (See the WP:GNG: only secondary sources demonstrate notability.) "Freud used this word in the following three publications" does not indicate notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't even the assertion that "the overwhelming majority of those 39 sources are primary" inherently include the concession that some are not primary? BitterGrey (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly: Both of the versions of Dynes' Encyclopedia of Homosexuality that are cited are considered tertiary sources, rather that primary sources. Tertiary sources also don't count for notability purposes.
Can you (or anyone else) point out any high-quality secondary sources in the list that contain even, say, ten sentences about this system for classifying sexual orientation? I haven't looked at all the sources, but I haven't found one yet.
Finally, notability is not merely a matter of whether it's possible to write an article; it's the whole decision about whether a completely separate article is the best way to handle this subject in Wikipedia. To give the classic example, sufficient secondary sources actually exist to write an entire article on Use of antibiotics in European chicken farming. But we don't have or want that narrow article: we want that issue addressed as part of Poultry farming and related articles. Perhaps this would be the best approach for this subject. That's something that we decide by thinking about what best serves our readers, not by counting up sources (not even by counting up independent, secondary sources that address the subject directly and in-depth ;-). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4,300 words and counting. Only 6 opinions so far (4 Keep, 2 Delete). Hebephilia is a more relevant example of an overly-narrow article, given that there are also Chronophilia, Ephebophilia, and Pedophilia articles. Outside of sexuality, the "random article" link quickly came up with articles like Bloch_Park, with a grand total of one self-published ref, and Aerial_Board_of_Control with zero. BitterGrey (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands of words, several !votes (on both sides) that amount to "I do not understand what Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google_test says", and not one person who's named a single secondary source. That's all we need: one person to identify some proper secondary sources that discuss this concept in some sort of detail. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WhatamIdoing, I am in agreement with you that "That's something that we decide by thinking about what best serves our readers" ... the organization of articles in Wikipedia is a major issue here, so that they do not present a confused muddle to the readership: see my comment on problems with organization of gender topics, Transgender#Transsexual_people_and_science, Causes of transsexualism, etc regarding James Cantor's recent extensive additions to the Transgender article on brain research and transsexualism, where I raise the question: just where should this information be incorporated into Wikipedia? It's unquestionably based on WP:RS; so is the information in this article. There, James Cantor added a large amount of information, worthy in its own right, at what I believe to be too high a level in what needs to be presented as a hierarchy of articles...
Likewise here: my disagreement with James Cantor's request for a redirect — which would actually result in a merge of the contents of this article into Sexual orientation — is prompted by my belief that, if this approach is followed scrupulously for all such articles, the content in many articles relating to minor topics in Sexual orientation would wind up being merged into that article - Hebephilia, Transfan, etc.
Clearly, this is not a satisfactory solution to the problem, since it would mean that Sexual orientation would be either 1) of an unwieldly size exceeding the suggested Wikipedia article size or 2) unnecessarily abbreviated in the detail with which individual topics within that domain are addressed. -- thanks, -- bonze blayk (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (A) I can't find any coherent argument here, after removing the obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND and hostility issues.
(B & C) The relevant material is already contained on the sexual orientation page. (Jokestress recently added it there.) There has been no outburst from the watchers of that page about excessive length. The content is not too bad, except some WP:UNDUE problems, IMO. Nothing that can't be worked out over there.
Now then, about that RS for the topic of this mainpage...?
— James Cantor (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:BATTLEGROUND? "hostility issues"? Hm. And here I thought I was commenting on issues relating to the organization of articles relating to Transgender in Wikipedia.
Jokestress added a couple of paragraphs to Sexual orientation, not the current contents of this article, with 3 citations vs. the 39 used here.
NOTE: User:James Cantor, you do not have my permission to edit my comments. Please do not do so again. -- bonze blayk (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, three is smaller than 39... but does Wikipedia really need a citation that says only 'Freud to Wilhelm Fliess, March 23, 1900: "A good-natured and fine person, at a deeper layer gynecophilic, attached to the mother."'? Are we trying to create a directory of primary sources that use this word? Or might we (and our readers) be better off with citations to the best sources, rather than a laundry list of rather indiscriminately chosen sources?
I'm on the fence about this article. As written, it's got some DUE problems: it overemphasizes the trans issues, it strings together primary sources, and we may even have some NOR problems when we say that, e.g., the ancient Greek myths were talking about the same concept as the modern sexologists. But fundamentally I wonder whether isolating from other ways of classifying it is the best we can do for our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WhatamIdoing, a number of the citations newly provided in this article might not be the best, and I'm not arguing that all 39 are worthy of inclusion. Since they were all added by User:Jokestress about a week ago, in response to a challenge from User:James Cantor to provide sources supporting the notability of this article, I have not had time to check her contributions out (aside from doing a bit of minor copyediting).
For background, you might check out the recent history of this article: after complaining about its unintelligible condition on 2 January 2011 and drawing no reaction, I eventually got around to reviewing it... and indulged my "reflex to disagree" (see above ;-) not only by deleting as worthless all but one of the six "citations" that had been previously employed starting 4 June 2011, but also repairing the (bizarre) terminological confusions of "androsexuality" (?) and "uranism" introduced by "Joe Random IP editor" on 14 September 2010.
Soon after I addressed these atrocities, James Cantor noticed that I had denuded the article of its bogus "sources" and proceeded to claim that it had had "very many issues for very many years" and thus "it should be nominated for deletion" 12 June 2011.
Amusingly James Cantor was here 15 August 2010 adding an EL... which survived for 12 hours before it was deleted by an admin. -- thank you! -- bonze blayk (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Saying it doesn't make it so. Which source exactly is it that uses "andrphilia and gynephilia" as a topic or phrase unto itself? As the above discussion clearly indicates, there have been editors making blanket declarations about what the RS's say or what the state of the overall RS's say, but once fact-checked have turned out to be 180 degrees wrong. (Including your wildly incorrect assertion that "androphilia and gynephilia" has 700,000 google hits.) So, which source exactly is it that covers "androphilia and gynephilia" as a topic, more than as passing mention?— James Cantor (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, Kim appears to have been referring to James' observation that androphilia and gynephilia collectively have that many Google hits. "androphilia OR gynecophilia 795,000 hits [25]". Thus James can't call Kim "180 degrees wrong" without being wrong himself. People using the smarter-than-thou posture really need to be more careful with their logic - especially if they are claiming to be respectable scientists. Some us us ain't dumb. In this case, it is easily confirmed that androphilia and gynephilia collectively have that many Google hits. BitterGrey (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. LOL So, Bittergray is saying: Kim's error was to use the "androphilia OR gynephilia" data even though this page is about "androphilia AND gynephilia". (Keep talking, Bitter, you're doing great!) The cause/nature of Kim's error is, of course, inconsequential (if not supportive) to my argument. Regardless of whether Kim correctly described the incorrect google search or incorrectly described the correct google search doesn't matter, of course. The correct description of the correct search is that this is a minority (fringe?) angle assembled by OR from sources that do not provide significant coverage of the topic of the mainpage. Thus far, every assertion for notability has turned out to be, not just a difference in judgment call, but a flat out error, gross misrepresentation, or just simple evasion of the question. Despite the easily typed out assertions, no one has provided a single RS for support. Folks can back and forth like this as much as wanted, variously misrepresenting the literature one way, misrepresenting it another way, attempting to splatter me with this or that paint, attempting to splatter the whole literature with this or that paint...But at the end? An actual RS to support the mainpage...? Clearly, no one has such an RS, despite numerous calls over numerous months.— James Cantor (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although this is all a moot point because you are proposing a merger/split in a *deletion* page, I can't help but point out that there are many secondary sources that point to the use of "gynephilia and androphilia". Here is just one. [26] That article (published this year) would be a primary source for "Avuncularity in Japan", but is a secondary source on use of "gynephilia and androphilia". This is really indisputable, if you read any article on primary and secondary sources it will tell you that "primary source" is a relative term, that a primary source can be a secondary source depending on context. Furthermore, Wikipedia has nothing against using peer reviewed primary sources if you do not synthesize your own conclusions from it and a non-expert could plainly see the conclusion in the research. So even if you some how decided that the article's later summary of history of use of the term androphilia and gynephilia was still not a secondary source, this is an appropriate use of a primary source because the primary source says in plain english: "Androphilia refers to sexual attraction and arousal to adult males, whereas gynephilia refers to sexual attraction and arousal to adult females". And this is just one source I randomly found in a lazy search. It is obvious that there is a case to be made for keeping this as a separate article, and there is no case to be made for DELETING the article. There is no case to be made deletion, can we at least agree on that, and then move on and discuss merging/splitting some other time? Kyle112 (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No, the Vasey & VanderLaan article is more of the same thing: Although the article uses the word "androphilia" and uses the word "gynephilia," the topic and content of the article are, very clearly, sexual orientation, and its content would go in sexual orientation. "Sexual orientation" is what's in the title of the article, and the article came from a symposium/workshop entitled, "The Puzzle of Sexual Orientation: What Is It and How Does It Work?". I am happy to send a copy of the article to anyone needing access.— James Cantor (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No, James. I am stating that Kim was correct in that the terms appear in 700K web pages. This number can be easily calculated by Googling first for one term, and then the other, and adding. To avoid adding manually, one can run a search for any web pages that use one term or the other, as in the link. I'd suggest you run the search and see that Kim is correct yourself, but I know you already have. It is hard to imagine that any competent scientist would have difficulty with this measurement, although I think most of us are aware that James has had problems Googling in the past. 8100 words; 5 Keep, 2 delete.BitterGrey (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, it is 5 keep, 2 Redirect. Since no one is for deletion this should be taken off "proposed for deletion". Not even the proposer advocates an actual delete. Kyle112 (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since 17 July, James has been developing a competing article. Among several other actions, this involved removing a redirect to then "Gynephilia and androphilia" that was in place since 2006.[27]

I move that we take James' investment into the competing article on this topic as a demonstration that even he believes this topic deserves its own article. Merger or sepration discussions asside, this deletion discussion should never have been started. I move that we close this AFD discussion. BitterGrey (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing AFDs early only convinces the "losing" side that you believed that a full-length discussion had a significant chance of producing a different outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or that we don't enjoy pointless bickering. (8800 words: 5 Keep, 2 something else) BitterGrey (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it implies that this debate was improperly categorized from the beginning. I have no qualms with discussing the redirection you guys want, but a deletion nomination is the wrong place for that. Kyle112 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:Proposed mergers would have been the ideal place for this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The error is ultimately my responsibility. There was several weeks of low-volume discussion of deletion on the talkpage [28]; Jokestress then added a large number of edits [29], which I perceived to include a large number of problems (including BLP; see edit comment in [30]); Jokestress then asked for "an AfD nomination or a complete listing of all the concerns"; and because it made no sense to me to discuss individual sentences when the whole topic was SYNTH, I started the AfD. I had mentioned a merge early on in the deletion discussion on the article's talkpage [31], but no one else mentioned it since. So, although I clearly have no preference for venue, I am nonetheless the one who filed this and am responsible if it was in error.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More half-truth. James Cantor mentioned AFD two hours prior[32]. Jokestress was merely repeating an option that Cantor brought up. BitterGrey (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BitterGrey: As you scramble more looking for reasons to express negativity, you are understanding less of what's in front of you. As one can see right above your comment, I wrote: "no one else mentioned it since" (emphasis added). My own mentions are not someone else's mentions.— James Cantor (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Two of the better secondary sources listed in the article as it stands are the analysis in the "Surrogate phonology and transsexual faggotry" piece by Bruce Bagemihl, and the chapter in Brain Storm by Dr. Jordan-Young, which includes graphs, extensive analysis, and debunking of a lot of the "brain sex" stuff put out by psychologists. The discussion of androphilia/gynephilia vs. homosexual/heterosexual starts at page 158, but the closing admin can read some of it here. As far as the bloviation and statistical nonsense above, gynephilia appears 16,800 times, 2,600 of which are connected with androphilia, or about 15% of the time. Gynecophilia appears with androphilia about 47% of the time. I see this attempt at suppressing this debate now has multiple fronts, including a trumped-up BLP claim that removed a reliable source containing contextualization of the term as part of Blanchard's transsexualism typology (a link now removed completely from the article in a knee-jerk response), a WP:POINTy content fork of this article at androphilia, and other disruptions. I hope the closing admin sees through all this, looks at the Jordan-Young link above, and closes this inappropriate AfD after it has been up for the full amount of time required. Jokestress (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Jokestress provided two RSs. Once checked, both support my point, once again. From the link Jokestress provided to the (non-peer reviewed) “Brain Storm”:
androphilia 0 hits
gynephilia 0 hits
gynecophilia 0 hits
gynophilia 0 hits
androphile 7 hits
gynephile 7 hits
heterosexual 81 hits
homosexual 69 hits
sexual orientation 100 hits (Although that engine said "100," I don’t know if that means exactly 100, or if the engine provides only the first 100.)
That is, just like all the other alleged RSs, that piece uses the terms, but the topic is very clearly sexual orientation. Any reliable content (again, this is not a peer reviewed work) belongs in sexual orientation. “Androphilia and gynephilia” receives barely passing mention and no significant coverage. Second, although Jokestress didn't provide this it, this link to “Surrogate phonology and transsexual faggotry” by Bruce Bagemihl (also non-peer reviewed) permits the analogous search:
androphilia 0 hits
gynephilia 0 hits
gynophilia 0 hits
gynecophilia 0 hits
heterosexual 105 hits
homosexual 105 hits
sexual orientation 74 hits
That, obviously, supports exactly what I am saying. The terms never appear in the Bagemihl book at all. And these are the cites that Jokestress called “two of the better secondary sources.” (!) “Androphilia and gynephilia” is not a topic independent of sexual orientation.
Finally (although I may discuss it more fully in a separate post), is Jokestress' justification that androphilia "almost always" occurs in tandem with gynephilia and that my prior results were "very misleading." Although Jokestress' math is wrong (she used the wrong denominator), if we accepted her claims of 15% and 47%...Those numbers, not even a simple majority, justify "almost always"? Yes, I do indeed hope the closing admin will consider who seems to say some "very misleading" things.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please review the link I supplied. The debate and terms are discussed in the very first line of the link above from 'Brain Storm.' It goes on for many pages. And Bagemihl talks at length about this debate and the problems of "homosexual transsexual" nomenclature regarding trans people, per the link above, which is the context in which it is presented in this article (which doesn't make sense now that the introductory sentence was removed completely. All this quibbling and goading above doesn't negate the fact that James Cantor uses the term "homosexual transsexual" to mean what other psychologists call a "heterosexual transsexual," and that there has been a push for a long time among progressive and exacting psychologists to use the more scientific alternative androphilic/gynephilic to avoid that very confusion. It's not "neutral" to use both, any more than it is to use both a deprecated "science" term like imbecile interchangeably with mental retardation. I'm not sure there's much more to add here. Consensus seems pretty clear. Jokestress (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. LOL Goes on for many pages...just not saying what Jokestress says it does. That passage discusses the structure of sexual orientation; it explores whether sexual orientation it is one-dimentional (like on the Kinsey scale) or if there should be two dimentions (like this), one for attraction to men and one for attraction to women. That is, although that non-peer-reviewed book used androphili/gynephilia, they could also have used heteroeroticism/homoeroticism, or any other terms. That is, the topic was the structure of sexual orientation, not the words.
Moreover, I use "homosexual transsexual" to mean what other psychologists call a "heterosexual transsexual" rather than "androphilic transsexual"? Really? So, is Jokestress unable to find any times I used "androphilic" (confirming that I am perfectly happy using either teminology)? Or Jokestress does know about me using "androphilic", but is telling everyone I advocate against it anyway. So, which is it, Jokestress? Do I use "androphilic transsexual" as well as other terms, or don't I?
Regarding consensus, I have no illusions about there being admins who do, in fact, merely tally votes rather than read the arguments necessary for the harder, but more informed, decision. That does not, however, change what is here: a serious of entirely unfounded statements, mostly ad hominems from my usual wikihounds, absent actual discussion, overridden with illogic, and all wildly failing every effort at fact-checking.— James Cantor (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James, we've seen the competing article you're developing, and so know this was never about the notability of the topic. We also know that auto-androphilia and auto-gynephilia are covered in one article, so we see no good-faith reason why androphilia and gynephilia shouldn't similarly be covered in one article. We also know that the auto-androphilia and auto-gynephilia article is under the title Blanchard's transsexualism typology - your colleague - thus establishing a clear conflict of interest.

Regarding the BLP accusations you are making against Jokestress, I've asked you a simple yes-or-no question there. I would appreciate an answer.

I suspect that I'm not alone in loosing patience in your smokescreen tactics. (10K words, 5 keep, 2 something else) BitterGrey (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. BitterGrey has clearly convinced himrself of his logic, and I don't pretend to be able to get him to see it. Nonetheless, for the record: The aformentioned google search of "androphilia" (without gynephilia) found >700,000 hits. To say that that does not deserve a page won't do well in even a laugh test. Any notability that androphilia and gynephilia could be made to seem to have is actual notability for androphilia or for sexual orientation (or for gynephilia). Indeed, BitterGrey's assertion that androphilia and gynephilia competes with androphilia is to assert that androphilia and gynephilia is not an independent topic in the first place.
2. I believe that conversation about Jokestress' behavior is better continued at WP:BLP/N than here, and better with the two admins participating there, than with me.
3. Finally, to lose one's patience would require that one started with some.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
James, you are confusing my points, immediately above, with Kim van der Linde's and Jokestress's points some distance above. Is it really that hard to follow, or are you trying to misdirect us, and failing? BitterGrey (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I've gotten through a good number of the sources, though not all. Nearly all are WP:PRIMARY sources, often used to say little more than "____ used this word on this date" or "____ used this word in this slightly different way" or even merely the tangential point that "____ doesn't like the old terms". Even some of the sources that we'd normally say are secondary sources are being used merely as primary sources here (e.g., the Freund paper is used to support a statement about who developed a scale in which year, rather than to support a statement about the concepts). Some of the sources don't even mention the word, or barely do more than mention it. Bagemihl, my chief disappointment in this regard, doesn't mention any variant of either the word at all. He talks about the problems with the older terms (that he objects to these older terms is all the source is trying to support)—but he never manages to even mention these. Bagemihl therefore provides zero evidence of the newer terms' notability. Jordan-Young's Brain Storm is the only reliable source that I could unreservedly label a proper secondary source that actually addresses the subject directly.
    The GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources. Brain Storm seems to be the only source that meets this standard, and it cannot be said to be "multiple" sources. I believe therefore that the best course of action is a WP:MERGE, without prejudice against WP:SPLITting later, when/if more secondary sources become available in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is it reasonable to assume that the merger will be androphilia into androphilia and gynephilia? In effect, this would restore the 2006 redirect that was in place before this wild goose chase started. androphilia and gynephilia is the broader and more established article. BitterGrey (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. The explanation of these procedings to you should probably come from someone other than me, however.— James Cantor (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was hoping for an answer from someone who knew the difference between merge and delete. However, I would like an answer from you for my question from BLP: Have you used the term "homosexual transsexual?" It seems like such a simple question. BitterGrey (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BitterGrey, you are allowed, of course, to disagree with me all you like, and there is likely leeway in how often you can get away with WP:wikihounding, following me to pages you have never previously edited contributing only your new disagreements. However, you appear to be having trouble remembering (or a talent for refusing to remember) anything that shows when you’re wrong. In this conversation, I have said, several times now, that I have used BOTH kinds of terminology:
"I have actually used both the heterosexual/homosexual terminology and the androphilia/gynephilic terminology in my writings…" [33]
"That Blanchard prefers one set, and Aggrawal prefers another set, where I employ both, is neither here nor there." [34]
"…since I am the only one in the bunch (including Jokestress) who has used both terminologies (and others)" [35]
The emphases appear in the original posts. Moreover, my c.v. is online, listing every professional document I have ever published. That you nonetheless continue to wonder if I have used either terminology speaks not to my record, but to a difficulty or unwillingness to understand the issues under discussion. Although you make your hostility towards me very clear, your arguments are merely restatements of your foregone conclusion tacked on to malapropisms of what other people have said. None of these compels me to respond to your continued misunderstandings.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cantor, the question I asked about your BLP accusation against Jokestress should be answered at BLP, not here. You opened the discussion at BLP, and so should see it through to conclusion, even if that conclusion is that you clearly used the term that Jokestress wrote that you used and that it was only your accusation that was false. Since I was pretty sure you would start making false accusations against me too, I was careful to detail why I am here in my second comment here: There was an invitation posted to a board that I watch[36]. Now could you please stop the baseless accusations and get back to the point - what you have against the conjunction, "and." BitterGrey (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Feel free to repost my response wherever you like.
2. Your belief that the issue is the word "and" suggests you have not actually been understanding these proceedings.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the notability of that subject, nor any reason to bother forming an opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (no redirect) Clearly meets the guidelines for a standalone article, plenty of sources that address the subject in detail. VERTott 03:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. VERTott 03:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I ask how many of those sources you actually read? I found very few that contained even a couple of sentences on the subject, which would be a pretty minimal standard for "addressing the subject in detail". Several do not address the subject at all; they support some tangential point. Others contain nothing more than that the word used in passing. Can you give me an example of a source that contains, say, ten sentences about the subject? Jordan-Young's book was the only one I found that had more than a very brief statement about this method of classifying sexual orientation. I'm willing to rethink my !vote if I've overlooked something—and I hope that you'd be willing to rethink yours, if further investigation shows that the vast majority of these sources say very little (or nothing, in a few cases) that is actually directly about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, feel free to re-review all the references you just reviewed and comment on their impact on the conjunction, "and." Given the similarity of the concepts, I think it elegant to have them in the same article, much like autoandrophilia and autogynephilia are, unless there is some reason to separate them. While there is a great deal of argument above, I haven't read any reasons necessitating separation. (12K words, 6 keep, 3 something else) BitterGrey (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There needs to be a clearer separation and distinction between the "old" uses (indicating attraction to adults rather than to children) and the "new" uses (as alternatives to terms such as gay, lesbian etc.), but the article is in moderately good shape and easily improvable with a little effort (certainly not deserving of immediate deletion). AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. AnonMoos, there is no old versus new use. That's just one of the many made-up claims dropped in here without source or other evidence. At least, if you have any RS or other evidence of such a change over time, do please provide it. Below, I have put a table with the number of google hits to each of the terms (“androphilic transsexual,” etc.) broken down by year. As is very clear, there has been no meaningful change in proportion over time. Rather, there has been a very small minority use that has clearly remained a very small minority use. I included the links to the searches for 2010, but all the others can be found in the same way.
Year "Androphilic transsexual" "Homosexual transsexual" "Gynephilic transsexual" "Heterosexual transsexual"
2000 0 5 0 0
2001 0 43 0 18
2002 0 34 0 18
2003 2 55 0 5
2004 1 68 0 8
2005 1 53 1 8
2006 0 58 0 30
2007 1 120 1 48
2008 0 197 0 100
2009 3 240 0 120
2010 7 [37] 290 [38] 1 [39] 135 [40]
— James Cantor (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really, really do not know what the table is supposed to be about. The "new" uses of the terms are mainly to provide an alternative perspective by grouping hetero men and lesbians together as "gynephiles", while grouping hetero women and gay men together as "androphiles". The table seems to have nothing to do with this... AnonMoos (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The table demonstrates that the phrase has not actually been getting much use at all. Rather, the homosexual/heterosexual terminology is the overwhelming standard. What are RS's, sufficient for WP:GNG purposes, that discuss old versus new uses?— James Cantor (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't know any better, I'd say James Cantor was using this table to advocate terms like "Homosexual transsexual". BitterGrey (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- you seem to be narrowly obsessed with a very minor and very technical intra-professional dispute which has very little to do with the main historical uses of the terms (to indicate attraction to adults, not youths/children), nor with the main current uses of the terms (to provide an interesting alternative perspective on the heterosexual/homosexual distinction). I know nothing about how the terms are used with transsexuals, nor do I care very much about it, nor can I see how it has much to do with with whether the article should be kept or deleted. Therefore your elaborate chart seems to be mainly a steaming pile of irrelevance. AnonMoos (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - both androphilia and gynephilia have very much so historical context. Term known since very old times. So, if any other reasons, it is worth of seperate entry. But it also is a term used currently in a slightly different research - in transexuality. It is not (today) the same as homosexuality, so merging it would suggest not altogether fully valid argument. It should remain as a separate article. --emanek (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. BitterGrey's emotions are clear; his logic is not. As I have alreay said (many, many times here already) that I think the words are perfectly fine. Even Jokestress conceded that I was correct when I said that I have myself used the word "androphilia" in publications. Yet, BitterGrey still concludes I oppose the very word I myself use professionally? His evidence being that he is capable of imagining that I am part of a conspiracy? Clearly, WP:STICK applies. BitterGrey can, of course, cite anything I have written, but merely making things up to accuse a professional journal editor of manipulating the contents of articles is a VERY big deal.— James Cantor (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. James Cantor, you might want to retract the previous BLP accusation (the one where you accuse Jokestress of writing that you use a term that you do, in verifiable fact, use) before going around making more accusations. As for making things up, if there is interest I could find a number of other discussions where James Cantor has been criticized for self-promotion and devaluation of competitors on Wikipedia. My personal favorite is when he logged in as "MariontheLibrarion" and wrote himself into an article as a most prominent researcher, only to have someone else discover that "MariontheLibrarion" was James Cantor and raise the issue at COI/N. My guess is that James Cantor chose AFD and BLP since they are among the few boards that haven't been involved with previous rounds. I don't argue that this is a big deal, though. BitterGrey (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fail to see how James could conclude that my vote was meant for two separate entries. Being of relatively sound mind I knew what I was voting for. Primo) there is only one existing title (the other does not have separate article); secundo) It is much better and broader explained than the single separate article. If we can not have too better separate articles it is much better two have one common one which offers better perspective. And since both are very similar terms (the difference is male and female add ons)than perhaps it is even wiser to explaine them toghther. Either way - it should be researched a bit broader, but that is different subject. yours, --emanek (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think you misunderstand me: I know that your vote was indeed for keeping "androphilia and gynephilia," I am saying only that the logic you described does not lead to that conclusion. Rather, your logic suggested that each term have its own article (which is fine with me). The history, etymology, and use of "androphilia" is very distinct from that of "gynephilia," as already shown in the above discussion. Primo) The status of the androphilia page and gynephilia redirect is not at all evidence for the status of the RSs--The reason "androphilia" has an article and "gynephilia" is only a redirect is that I have not yet had time to put text in the second. Secundo) To the extent that these terms are similar and should be explained together is the extent to which they belong in Sexual orientation, not in a neologistic "androphilia and gynephilia," which has no RSs to support it.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This set of term pairings can be discussed at sexual orientation. This seems to fall under neologism rules, where the meaning of the terms and their origins and cultural context need to be sourced, not just that some people use them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, that is entirely true. From WP:NOTNEO:
"Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." (Clearly, Jokestress' desire.)
"Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." (Which is exactly the problem here.)
"Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." QED.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The debate about the usage for sex and gender minorities dates to the 1980s, when Ron Langevin made the proposal. Since then, James D. Weinrich described the debate, and Stephen T. Wegener pushed for adopting Langevin's "clear and concise" usage. Former Kinsey Institute director John Bancroft M.D. has expressed regret for using the older terminology, which has been characterized by various experts as "heterosexist," "archaic," demeaning, "awkward," "confusing and controversial." Psychiatrist Anil Aggrawal explained why they are needed, and sexologist Milton Diamond, arguably the most famous expert on intersex issues in the world, summarized his use of the term in The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. Meanwhile, the holdouts rarely comment on why they continue to use the less scientific terminology to describe sex and gender minorities, with the exception of J. Michael Bailey, who asserts "homosexual transsexuals are a type of gay man." Rebecca Jordan-Young spends several pages including graphs describing the conceptualization in a secondary source, stating that holdouts like Bailey and his allies "have completely failed to appreciate the implications of alternative ways of framing sexual orientation." Clearly, a great deal of this is analysis of the terminology and the debate on usage, indicating notability and significance. Jokestress (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you claim that something as 'old' as the 80's can't possibly be a neologism anymore? Like, that's totally rad. Anyway, the debate at the 'Santorum' article over neologism made it pretty clear to me what is and isn't a neologism, and despite a lot of people adopting these terms, which clearly make sense, it doesn't mean they aren't still neologisms. Your attempt to embiggen the use of this word, while perfectly cromulent, does embody truthiness, but falls short. -- Avanu (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, from WP:GNG: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail." None of those cites provide more than passing mention, expressing what term the author will use in that particular work, as is standard in scientific writing. That does not consitute "significant coverage."— James Cantor (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 1880s, perhaps. Please note historic uses by Magnus Hirschfeld and Sigmund Freud in the article. Sure there have been some transitions over the century, and that history should be covered. Of course, since this is all about the conjunction, "and," debating how established the terms are is irrelevant.
I regret that James Cantor couldn't let even one person share an opinion without feeling the need to get an argument in. (Other than the one who's only opinion was "per James Cantor" and the time I asked a question first.) While I disagree with Johnpacklambert, I respect his right to have an opinion. I was starting to think this articles-for-deletion debacle would pass without even one vote for deletion. BitterGrey (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Androphilia-Rejecting-Identity-Reclaiming-Masculinity/dp/0976403587