Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SemanticMantis (talk | contribs) at 14:53, 17 March 2016 (→Should the anatomy images or other images have references?: remove RfC template because it is closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human sexuality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Template:WP1.0

Template:WAP assignment This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ceelise (article contribs).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human sexuality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Vandalism

Someone vandalized the beginning of the article. Seeing as I can't remove it, it has to be a hack. Please have someone come fix this.

Citation analysis consistent with the critique of the IP editor

I have no longstanding or longterm interest in contributing to the quality of the article, but have a strong interest in seeing broad, general improvements in the sourcing of scientific articles—including those in the common space between social and biological sciences. And I have an interest in seeing IP editors treated well, by the majority of us, not the few.

The recent visiting IP editor was so set upon by more experienced editors that I thought I would perform a first-pass (rough draft) evaluation of this article, strictly from the perspective of evaluating its sources.

The goals in doing this are three:

• (1) To allow us to come to consensus as to the quality of the article, at least in terms of verifiable information (though for this scientist, and for purists such as myself and NeilN, it is likely that if sources should come out, content must also);
• (2) To identify patterns of problems, so particular individuals with time and desire might address them (e.g., incomplete therefore unverifiable entries, poor specific sources for particular blocks of information, varyingly formatted similar sources and repeat sources making source followup difficult, etc.), and
• (3) To create a list of first issues to address, so that there might be a common set of priorities (i.e., where the list below might, in months to come, be sprinkled with  Done markers).

In doing this, I am applying the same academic standards as I might have in reviewing a paper submission from a sixth form or older student, on into university. This is the sort of thing that, while scholarly (so we might each might differ on the details of the analysis), all might agree to the trends represented (and all might have arrived at the same perception within minutes reviewing the article references, and have accomplished a full first-pass evaluation in an hour or so.) That is, we can see for ourselves, instead of taking the a priori position that all is fine enough to remain, or insisting a new editor argue her or his case, thoroughly and decisively, to more seasoned Misplaced Pages hands.

After having done this evaluation, I have come to the conclusion that the article weaknesses referred to by the IP editor appear to be substantiated. From the persecutive of reliability of information, based on expectation of high quality and verifiable secondary sources suited to the content, I conclude that the article is in very poor condition.

After reviewing this summary of the state of this article's sources, see if you might not agree.

Here, in bullet form, are cogent observations from the evaluation of the article's sourcing:

• >70 references to 12 or more undergraduate textbooks as sources, rather than the scholarly secondary or tertiary sources drawn upon by those texts (see more below);

• >70 references to books that appear without page numbers—King 2008 and King 2009 (47 refs), Buss, Crain (5), Boccadoro (2), Fausto-Sterling, Rathus (3), Russon, Farrell, Coon (2), Escoffier, Al-islam.org, Stearns Major Patterns, Stearns Sexuality (6), Greene;

• 47 (36 plus 11) references to the same undergraduate textbook (King, 2008 and 2009), in two entries, all appearing without page numbers;

• More than a half dozen books lacking full citations, particularly, date of publication (e.g., King, Buss, Stearns Major Patterns, Stearns Sexuality), but also, other obscured details (e.g., David Weeks, Secrets of the Superyoung. Berkley., is actually D, Weeks & J. James, 1999, Secrets of the superyoung: The scientific reasons some people look ten years younger than they really are and how you can, too", New York:Villard Books, etc.)

• Long articles (> 20 pp) without narrowing part of article sourced via Section name or page number (e.g., Ross, Freud, Nagel, Lee et al, CDC);

• Nonsense page references (e.g., Kim & Ward);

• Many bare URLs or URL-only citations without links (find articles.com, enotes.com, TheAge.com.au, etc.);

• Multiple (>8) references to dead links (facts.org, psychnews.psychiatryonline.org, eehow.com, etc.);

• Many egregiously inappropriate web-based sources, including innerbody.com, about.com, essortment.com, howstuffworks.com (!), proplusmedical.com (male enhancement sales page!), eehow.com, TheAge.com.au, etc.;

• Many further web-based sources for which there are clearly better scholarly sources available — see appearances of Csongradi, oxytocin, innerbody.com, about.com, essortment.com (e.g., on Skinner), CNN.com and HuffPost (on G-spot validity), howstuffworks.com, proplusmedical.com, cwluherstory.org (as source of Anne Koedt article), jrank.org, eehow.com, TheAge.com.au, pop religious web pages for serious theological content, BBC.com (on Hindu religious views), webmd (on sex and longevity, and health benefits), Contracept.org, Epigee.org, Betterhealth.vic.gov.au on calendar methods of birth control, americanpregnancy.org for definitions and information on spermicides; Kidshealth.org for information on IUDs, medicinenet.com for information on birth control methods; familydoctor.org for information on Deo-Provera — and extending to all on the dubious list below;

• Non-english citations without apparent readily available translations (Boccadoro);

• Professorial/uncurated academic web content, including course pages (csun.edu, psychology.ucdavis.edu, unm.edu, etc.); and

• Format-wise, in addition to the above (incomplete citations, bare URLS, etc.), no consistency of book and journal article referencing, and several repeat appearances of the same source (Summa Theologica, Hyde, etc.).

The following list provides some particularly questionable examples of sources (omitting entirely the many incomplete book and journal references that are unverifiable for their incompleteness) —

• Particularly dubious web sources:

• Think Sex from TheAge.com.au. Retrieved 11 October 2009.

• http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-human-sexuality-455483

• "nature versus vs. nurture debate or controversy - human psychology blank slate". Age-of-the-sage.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30.

• "I'm a woman who cannot feel pleasurable sensations during intercourse". Go Ask Alice!. 8 October 2004 (Last Updated/Reviewed on 17 October 2008). Archived from the original on January 7, 2011. Retrieved September 13, 2012.

• Intimacy, Sinclair (25 April 2005). "Discovery Health "Sexual Response"". Health.howstuffworks.com. Retrieved 2013-02-18.

• http://www.proplusmedical.com/pages.html?pages_id=8 (!)

• What is Psychosexual Development? Psychology from About.com. Retrieved 12 October 2009.

• B. F. Skinner and behaviorism. From essortment. Retrieved 12 October 2009.

• "Sexuality in Adulthood - Aging - Women, Age, Changes, and Intimacy - JRank Articles". Family.jrank.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30. (6 references)

• eehow.com[dead link (4 references)

• "Judaism 101: Kosher Sex". Jewfaq.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30.

• Deem, Rich. "The Biblical Design for Human Sexuality". Godandscience.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30.

• Doheny, K. (2008) "10 Surprising Health Benefits of Sex," WebMD (reviewed by Chang, L., M.D.)

• Blum, Jeffrey. "Can Good Sex Keep You Young?". WebMD. Retrieved 8 October 2010.

• Cornforth, Tracee (17 July 2009). "The Clitoral Truth. Interview with author and sex educator Rebecca Chalker.". About.com. Retrieved 21 April 2010.

• "'I Want a Better Orgasm!'". WebMD. Archived from the original on 2009-01-13. Retrieved August 18, 2011.

• "Finding the G-spot: Is it real?". CNN.com. 5 January 2010. Retrieved 7 November 2011.

• G-Spot Does Not Exist, 'Without A Doubt,' Say Researchers - Lay summary – The Huffington Post (19 January 2012).

A further alternative plan to maintaining most text and working over time to improve the article, and perhaps a desirable course to make rapid improvements, would be to redact weak sections / parts in toto, esp. where the material is unverifiable, e.g.,

• when a whole scientific section is devoid of any references, and as a result seems sophomorically stream of consciousness in terms of scope (see Evolutionary aspects, );
• when a whole or substantial part of a section is based on one or more egregiously poor sources (see Sexuality in late adulthood, with only poor Jrank and dead link sources, ); and
• when the citations are to the books that are referenced without pages being given, making the forensic work (to dig up page numbers from a poorer source more time consuming and less quality generating than to find and abstract a better scientific secondary source, see e.g., Sexuality in history, with only the incomplete King and Stearns book references for the entire block , save one sentence citing the pages 326-226 of Kim and Ward, ).

How to proceed on these fronts is up to the regular committed editors here (much, much less up to me, or any that are just vulturing/fly-bys).

Regardless of the course pursued, please, take visiting IP editors seriously. They may not have the time or the markup experience to assist us in the ways we wish. But they may nevertheless be correct in their intuitions or assessments, and may be potential valued contributors in future. And bias against them is simply against WP policy. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, you seem to have come to this discussion via Liz's talk page, where the IP left a complaint. I did take the IP's complaints seriously (well, the valid ones), and before this edit was made closing the discussion the IP started on this talk page, I was going to state the following: "Yes, IP, that source, which is used for this content is poor by Misplaced Pages's WP:Reliable sources standards. As for whether or not it is WP:Fringe, well, it is used to support John Locke's "blank slate" view; that view should be included in the article, since it is addressing the nature versus nature debate. Concerning this specific matter, is it that you only have a problem with that source or do you also have problem with including John Locke's view? His view is supported by a better source at the beginning of the Nature-versus-nurture debate section."

"There are certainly more poor sources used in the article. If I had good time to do so, I would have removed and/or replaced all of the poor sources in the article. I'm usually busy off-Misplaced Pages, often simultaneously working on improving Misplaced Pages, especially with regard to reverting vandalism or other unconstructive edits. Because I'm usually busy with other topics on Misplaced Pages, including sexual topics, but am also often lazy these days when it comes to significantly improving Misplaced Pages articles, I obviously have never gotten around to all of the sourcing issues pertaining to the Human sexuality article. I've pretty much viewed the article as too complicated and too problematic, including with regard to drive-by edits (whether made by long-term Misplaced Pages editors, WP:Student editors or other WP:Newbies), to devote much of my time to. There are Misplaced Pages sexual topics that I have significantly improved, or still significantly improve. But I'm one person. There are a lot of editors here, but not many who devote significant time to improving sexual topics. So these topics are often slow in the 'Will be improved.' department."

As for your analysis of the sources, Leprof 7272: Undergraduate textbooks as sources may be validly acceptable, per this recent discussion going on about such sources at the Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources talk page. WebMD counts as a WP:Reliable source for this article, per Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) allowing use of WebMD. That's why I added the "I Want a Better Orgasm!" WebMD source and better sources to go along with it for the material it is supporting. The WebMD source is a lay source and easily accessible source, whereas the scholarly source beside it is not easily accessible; nor are the journal sources, which are not lay sources. It is often best to provide an easily accessible lay source to go along with the scholarly source(s). This type of sourcing is permitted by WP:MEDRS, as long as the lay source is WP:Reliable. In fact, I and others recently discussed that type of sourcing style at WP:MEDRS, as indicated by this diff-link. I won't claim that WebMD is always reliable, however. Similarly, Go Ask Alice! often counts as a WP:Reliable for sexual information; so I added that to the article. The Tracee Cornforth/Rebecca Chalker source? It's an interview with an expert in the field of female sexual anatomy, especially with regard to the clitoris -- Rebecca Chalker (though what is an "expert" can be debatable, and experts disagree on certain matters regarding male or female sexual anatomy, but especially female sexual anatomy; for example, as shown in that interview, Chalker supports the idea of female ejaculation, a topic debated among anatomists, sexologists, sex educators and other researchers). It (the Chalker source) passes as a WP:Reliable source for the information it's used for in the article, and is used adjunct to scholarly sources. That's why I added it (and those other sources beside it). I'm not against removing it, however. The "Finding the G-spot: Is it real?. CNN.com" source? It's a lay source used adjunct to scholarly sources about an entity that has never been proven to exist -- the G-spot. That's why I used that source. The "G-Spot Does Not Exist, 'Without A Doubt,' Say Researchers - Lay summary – The Huffington Post (19 January 2012)." source? As is clear by "lay summary," it is a lay source; it is included in the citation format for the scholarly review source about the G-spot. Notice that "lay summary" is an optional field for scholarly sources; see Template:Citation Style documentation/lay. That's why I used that source. That stated, since it is used in the aforementioned scholarly source format, the CNN source is not needed; neither is the MSNBC source. As for the rest of the sources in the article, the vast majority of them I did not add. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Flyer22, for the thoughtful reply. There is much we clearly agree on. Anything that you would wish to do, to improve references you placed, is all the better, for it avoids conflicts if others choose to act. Agreed, undergraduate textbooks may be acceptable. Do we also agree that:

• (i) to cite UG texts repeatedly without pages is unacceptable, and
• (ii) that they are otherwise misused and overused here?

There are on the order of 183 inline citations appearing; 47 of these are to the same textbook (King, see current ref. 2). This is more than 25% of all material from the same source, and none of it can easily be verified (for lack of page numbers). I also agree that WebMD can be a reliable source, but would argue that the quality of its articles vary, in keeping with it being a commercial site needing to write articles that create buzz (rather than being of the highest scholarly content); this "I Want a Better…" article is less about quality of content than we would want at Misplaced Pages. I have no strong opinion about "Go Ask Alice!", but would suggest that there might be better, more authoritative sources, and suggest you make clearer what leads you to the conclusion that it is a reliable source at WIkipedia. In re: the The Tracee Cornforth/Rebecca Chalker article, two points: (i) Interviews are reliable sources about the perspectives of individuals on subjects, and not on factual information about those subjects. If the point in the text is the person's perspective, cite the interview, wherever it reliably is sourced/appears. If the point is to source the factual information being discussed, another better source is necessary, yes? (ii) As a rule, about.com will never be a reliable source for encyclopedic information at WIkipedia. The HuffPost article you mention is worth a further clarification, too: Newspapers and magazines (tradition print or web-based), when discussing biological, social or other sciences, are reliable sources for the matter of the public discussion of the science, but not for the science itself. That is to say, one can (in my view) cite HuffPost when saying "The matter of the existence of… has been the matter of wide public interest and discussion.", but when one says "...various researchers dispute its structure, existence…" what is needed, is a good secondary source stating the existence of the scientific depute (rather than citing Huff Post on the existence of a controversy, or even doing OR and listing the primary literature refs perceived as contributing to the controversy).

Bottom line, whatever you can improve of your originally placed citations, all the better, but the point of the foregoing analysis and discussion was to say:

• a desirable course to may be to make rapid improvements, via redaction of weak sections/parts in toto, esp. where the material is unverifiable (see three closing bullet points in original post, above), a course that requires discussion and some consensus to avoid edit wars,
• whether to proceed in this way or a via a softer, more gradual approach is up to the regular committed editors here, and

that regardless of the course pursued, please, the critiques of visiting IP editors should be take seriously. They may on occasion be opinionated individuals with no content expertise, but they are as likely to be professors or other scholars interested in better web information on the subject, and frustrated—reasonably, I am arguing here—over the very poor state of the article. The latter have no recourse other than to comment; real world commitments and demands cannot possibly allow a content matter expert to fix the article in its current state. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, yes, we agree that "to cite UG texts repeatedly without pages is unacceptable" and "that they are otherwise misused and overused here." As for the rest... Considering that the WebMD source is a decent lay source, a source that makes the matter easy for readers to access and understand, I don't think that it needs to be removed. Again, refer to what I stated above about citing lay sources in addition to scholarly, often-difficult-to-access sources. When one or more scholarly sources are provided in addition to a lay source, there should be no problem, as long as the lay source is WP:Reliable on the matter. WP:MED accepts this. I also have no strong opinion on keeping the Go Ask Alice! source. As for what makes it reliable, it is a health information source that has fact-checkers. Fact-checking, having a review process involving knowledgeable people on the subject, is key to any WP:Reliable source. Like I stated, I don't mind the Tracee Cornforth/Rebecca Chalker source being removed; it certainly is not the best source, or even a great source, to use there, but I repeat that I cited it along with scholarly sources. As for the use of The Huffington Post source, that is completely acceptable usage; to reiterate, it is cited as an adjunct to a scholarly review source...as a lay summary source (it is in the citation template along with the scholarly review source)...something that is a valid and accepted practice on Misplaced Pages. I mentioned above that it being acceptable to cite such a source with a scholarly secondary source is why Template:Citation Style documentation/lay exists. That source is a news report of the scholarly review source it is cited with. That stated, above I clearly agreed that the other news sources in the article about the G-spot aren't needed and could, for example, be replaced with this scholarly secondary source.

And if by "or even doing OR and listing the primary literature refs perceived as contributing to the controversy," you are referring to the two scholarly sources used there, I've mentioned already that one is a scholarly review source. It reviews all of the literature on the G-spot, including the fact that claiming that it exists is in dispute among researchers; it very much supports the "This area may vary in size and location from woman to woman, or be non-existent in some women, and various researchers dispute its structure, existence or hypothesize that it is an extension of the clitoris." line. As for that second scholarly source (Hines T, August 2001. "The G-Spot: A modern gynecologic myth"), which is a significantly older source and helps show that evidence for the G-spot's existence has not improved much since 2001, its abstract states: "This article reviews the behavioral, biochemical, and anatomic evidence for the reality of the G-spot, which includes claims about the nature of female ejaculation. The evidence is far too weak to support the reality of the G-spot. Specifically, anecdotal observations and case studies made on the basis of a tiny number of subjects are not supported by subsequent anatomic and biochemical studies."

I appreciate your review of the sources used for the Human sexuality article. I am all for using better sources when possible, except for cases where a lay summary source is clearly beneficial to lay readers. Like Misplaced Pages:Make technical articles understandable, Misplaced Pages is written for the general audience, and so I provide one or more lay sources when I think they are needed or are otherwise beneficial. Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this what WP:SOFIXIT was invented for? There is no reason to have extended forum-like discussions about meta issues when the purpose of an article talk page is pretty simple—someone should make an actionable proposal for improving the article. Aimless chatting is not going to encourage useful contributions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Giving your response a modicum of greater consideration than was given the careful analysis and proposals prompting you to alight here. I would say: No, this is not what WP:SOFIXIT was invented for, and your use of a single WP as a bludgeon is unbefitting the discussion (where WP:XXX's on consensus and other principles just as much apply); and No, this is not a forum-like discussion (which appears a possible sensitivity and further narrow WP:XXX perspective of yours), but rather it was an analysis of the important matter of the verifiability of the article's information, in response to an IP editor's query, an analysis which revealed more than a quarter of the information as unverifiable, and a larger fraction as poorly sourced; and Yes, actionable proposals are called for, where the Talk section analysis you passed over, seemingly superficially, above, has several actionable proposals to consider; and Yes, aimless fly-by commentary that does not immerse itself in real issues, but rather seeks to impose a perspective without due diligence regarding the matters at hand—yes, such aimless Talk is not helpful. (Based on AGF, I have to assume the "imless chatting" comment was self-referential, and that you were not talking about others.)

The point of the analysis was to arrive at a judicious evaluation of the claim of the earlier IP editor, that the material was poorly sourced, and therefore substantially unscientific. Based on the analysis, I support that claim. I then propose ways to proceed. Please, read, and suggest a constructive way forward. One does not fix 47 appearances of a textbook citation that includes two editions and not a single page number, as your GOFIXIT suggests; and one does not delete large blocks of essentially unreferenced text without discussion, and some consensus. This is for the committed editors of this page. Not for parties with fly-by interest (such as I, and perhaps you). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Human Sexuality and Eroticism are circularly defined

There is a strange circularity for these pages. On the eroticism page, erotic is defined pointing to the human sexuality article-- Eroticism (from the Greek ἔρως, eros—"desire") is a quality that causes "sexual" feelings. Meanwhile the human sexuality article points to the Eroticism page. Human sexuality is the capacity to have erotic experiences and responses. Put them together and you get Human sexuality is the capacity to have "sexual" feelings. Mrdthree (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds suspiciously like the dictionary definitions I listed before and not like whatever agenda User:Flyer22, User:EvergreenFir, User: Drowninginlimbo are pushing on this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Human_sexuality#Male.2FFemale.2FMan.2FWoman.2Fsex.2Fsexes_and_equivalent_are_absent_from_opening_paragraphs Mrdthree (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a bold claim to make. What agenda exactly are myself and the mentioned users pushing? Also I would really recommend you used independent sources rather than other Misplaced Pages articles to prove your point. You seem to have significant issues with this one in particular - so if you are relying solely on another article for evidence, then you are acknowledging that your argument is based on sources that are, in your own eyes, flawed. Back to your main argument, to put them together would be "to have erotic and sexual feelings", no? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to reply to the initial post in this section, considering I have no patience for silly accusations made against me. Editing sexual topics, I'm used to such silly or unfounded accusations, but my familiarity with them does not make them any less silly or unfounded. So here goes: Mrdthree, I already explained above what problem I had with your initial change to the first sentence of this article. In case you forgot what I stated, what I stated at 03:00, 7 May 2014‎ (UTC) is..."Mrdthree, I know that you are talking about the sexes, and that is partly what I addressed above. I am fine with the sexes being mentioned in the lead, but not your wording and not in the first sentence. Your wording of 'in which human beings relate to one another as males and females' made it sound as though human sexuality is all about how a male relates to a female and vice versa, which is an incorrect way to word human sexuality and, like I noted when first reverting you, can be viewed as heteronormative (similar to what Mark Miller/Maleko Mela told you). If the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources on human sexuality defined human sexuality that way, I would not object; this is because, per WP:Due weight (an aspect of the WP:Neutral policy), we usually give more weight to the majority view, even for the initial sentence of the WP:Lead. But the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources on human sexuality do not define it the way that you did. I know that you added 'or' in place of 'and' as a compromise, but the wording was still problematic. I suggest you propose a line about the sexes that is not for the first sentence and which ties into the 'reproductive functions and the human sexual response cycle' aspects mentioned in the lead."

So despite my having repeatedly stated that I don't object to "male and female" or "male, female and intersex" being in the lead (though I don't see a need for either mention there), my having worked with you to get you something close to what you wanted (meaning a compromise by adding "the sexes" wording) since two editors (EvergreenFir and Drowninginlimbo) objected to "male and female" or "male, female and intersex" being in the lead, you accuse me of pushing an agenda and lump me with the view of definitively objecting to that material being in the lead? The only "agenda" I push on topics like these, or any Misplaced Pages topic, is to follow WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral, including the WP:Due weight aspect of WP:Neutral. But go on then, keep painting me with that broad brush. And while you're at it, you might want to consider whatever bias you may have or agenda-pushing you may be trying to engage in (not only at this Misplaced Pages article, but at others). Despite the compromise that was made, you are back at this article trying to get your way again, even though I told you that you cannot always get your way on Misplaced Pages. But go ahead: Do what you feel that you must. I'm all but done discussing this matter with you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What should appear, in the lead and elsewhere, are descriptions and information that represent the preponderance of social and biological scientific and scholarly opinion, arrived at based on secondary (not primary, not popular) sources. Have all editors chiming in presented the sources that are the basis of their wanting the wording one way or another? "Source X refers to this as…", and "Source Y refers to it rather as…" ? As long as this is a matter of personal editor opinion, there can be no solution, and whatever solution exists is unbefitting the encyclopedia. Sourced opinions of those doing the original thinking and research need to be cited, and their patterns of expression used. My opinion, for what it is worth. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I read too much now. Its fair to say people write alot of stuff about human sexuality in a social sciences perspective, usually trying to be gender neutral which I suppose is a form of objectivity. So in that sense the lead paragraph resembles the research. I think I will restrict my editing to the biology section. Mrdthree (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Tags placed, since no community response to citation issues

Time waited was about the standard required 30 days. (If you planned a response tomorrow or Friday, apologies.) The broader[REDACTED] community perhaps can now have a look. Please do not remove the tags until the issues are dealt with, systematically. (Here is the list, from above, again. See Citation analysis section from second week of May, above). Note, the "single source" tag refers to the 47 inline references to the King text editions (refs. 2 and 53 as of this date), all without page numbers.

Here, in bullet form, is a cogent summary of the earlier evaluation of the article's sourcing. There were observed:

• >70 references to 12 or more undergraduate textbooks as sources, rather than the scholarly secondary or tertiary sources drawn upon by those texts (see more below);
• >70 references to books that appear without page numbers—King 2008 and King 2009 (47 refs), Buss, Crain (5), Boccadoro (2), Fausto-Sterling, Rathus (3), Russon, Farrell, Coon (2), Escoffier, Al-islam.org, Stearns Major Patterns, Stearns Sexuality (6), Greene;
• 47 (36 plus 11) references to the same undergraduate textbook (King, 2008 and 2009), in two entries, all appearing without page numbers;
• More than a half dozen books lacking full citations, particularly, date of publication (e.g., King, Buss, Stearns Major Patterns, Stearns Sexuality), but also, other obscured details (e.g., David Weeks, Secrets of the Superyoung. Berkley., is actually D, Weeks & J. James, 1999, Secrets of the superyoung: The scientific reasons some people look ten years younger than they really are and how you can, too", New York:Villard Books, etc.)
• Long book sections/articles/web content (> 20 pp) without narrowing part of article sourced via Section name or page number (e.g., Ross, Freud, Nagel, Lee et al, CDC);
• Nonsense page references (e.g., Kim & Ward);
• Many bare URLs or URL-only citations without links (find articles.com, enotes.com, TheAge.com.au, etc.);
• Multiple (>8) references to dead links (facts.org, psychnews.psychiatryonline.org, eehow.com, etc.);
• Many egregiously inappropriate web-based sources, including innerbody.com, about.com, essortment.com, howstuffworks.com (!), proplusmedical.com (male enhancement sales page!), eehow.com, TheAge.com.au, etc.;
• Many further web-based sources for which there are clearly better scholarly sources available — see appearances of Csongradi, oxytocin, innerbody.com, about.com, essortment.com (e.g., on Skinner), CNN.com and HuffPost (on G-spot validity), howstuffworks.com, proplusmedical.com, cwluherstory.org (as source of Anne Koedt article), jrank.org, eehow.com, TheAge.com.au, pop religious web pages for serious theological content, BBC.com (on Hindu religious views), webmd (on sex and longevity, and health benefits), Contracept.org, Epigee.org, Betterhealth.vic.gov.au on calendar methods of birth control, americanpregnancy.org for definitions and information on spermicides; Kidshealth.org for information on IUDs, medicinenet.com for information on birth control methods; familydoctor.org for information on Deo-Provera — and extending to all on the dubious list below;
• Non-english citations without apparent readily available translations (Boccadoro);
• Professorial/uncurated academic web content, including course pages (csun.edu, psychology.ucdavis.edu, unm.edu, etc.); and
• Format-wise, in addition to the above (incomplete citations, bare URLS, etc.), no consistency of book and journal article referencing, and several repeat appearances of the same source (Summa Theologica, Hyde, etc.).

The following list provides some particularly questionable examples of sources (omitting entirely the many incomplete book and journal references that are unverifiable for their incompleteness) — *Particularly dubious web sources:

• Think Sex from TheAge.com.au. Retrieved 11 October 2009.
• http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-human-sexuality-455483
• "nature versus vs. nurture debate or controversy - human psychology blank slate". Age-of-the-sage.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30.
• Intimacy, Sinclair (25 April 2005). "Discovery Health "Sexual Response"". Health.howstuffworks.com. Retrieved 2013-02-18.
• http://www.proplusmedical.com/pages.html?pages_id=8 (!)
• What is Psychosexual Development? Psychology from About.com. Retrieved 12 October 2009.
• B. F. Skinner and behaviorism. From essortment. Retrieved 12 October 2009.
• "Sexuality in Adulthood - Aging - Women, Age, Changes, and Intimacy - JRank Articles". Family.jrank.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30. (6 references)
• eehow.com[dead link (4 references)
• "Judaism 101: Kosher Sex". Jewfaq.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30.
• Deem, Rich. "The Biblical Design for Human Sexuality". Godandscience.org. Retrieved 2013-06-30.
• Cornforth, Tracee (17 July 2009). "The Clitoral Truth. Interview with author and sex educator Rebecca Chalker.". About.com. Retrieved 21 April 2010.

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The suggested 70 references to 12 or more undergraduate textbooks still leaves 40 more reputable sources.

“Single source” I only found about 12 refs to “the King text”, not “47”. Even so that would still leave around 60 references that don't come from your single source.

King appears in Ref. 2 and Ref. 53, which make 36 and 11 inline appearances, respectively, for a total of 47, i.e., no change from the original analysis, and all remaining without a page number, as of this date. See further below. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You have mentioned cited content that you have considered to have particularly questionable examples of sources , and your inclusion of them has flagged them up in a bunched list. People can work with that or one thing you could do would be to give any particular issue a section on this talk page. This would mean that editors could work together on an issue and come to consensus on positive ways forward. (not that its relevant but I am a non gay with no "pro" agenda. ) I think that edits would best be done by contributors to the page. Gregkaye (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You misread the foregoing lengthy arguments, mixing the notion of the number of appearances of inline superscripts with the number of sources to which they refer. (In the foregoing bullets, the word "references" is used about an inline reference to an indicated source.) Bottom line, there is no miscounting: the numbers given are all sound, and likely underestimate the issues at time the analysis was done. Please check again carefully, and ask a specific question if you have one.

After that, I think our remainders will then match, and of those, begin subtracting sources that are other books without page numbers, long citations (tens of pages) with no narrowing of page numbers, dead URLs, URL-only references (and therefore susceptible to link rot), etc., etc. Then look to the list of unacceptable web references. If you still think "no problem", status quo is OK, then state this, and I will reply.

If not hearing back, I have to assume you realize a flaw in your comment and will let the issue ride. Note, from my perspective, I see no attention whatsoever having been paid to the referencing issues, and so I see no basis to remove any article tag. Will be glad when work is done and tags can be removed, but for today, the article remains a quagmire of unreferenced, and so suspect content, and readers deserve to know this. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the scope of this article?

According to the lede "Human sexuality is the capacity to have erotic experiences and responses." Some of what is in this article seems to belong more in the sexual behavior article. Also, why are the opinions of Thomas Aquinas, Sigmund Freud and John Locke given such a disproportionate importance? 188.27.68.165 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the scope of the article is not clear from the lead (introduction). Human sexuality concerns all things that have to do with human sexuality, including sexual behavior. And Thomas Aquinas, Sigmund Freud and John Locke are included in the Nature-versus-nurture section, which is not that big; the section explains how Sigmund Freud and John Locke, especially Locke, influenced the nature versus nurture debate. They are given appropriate WP:Weight, even though the section could use trimming. As for Thomas Aquinas, he was not originally in that section, and seems misplaced there; an editor simply jammed him into that section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: I removed the Thomas Aquinas section. Flyer22 (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Tag-bombing accusation

@Leprof 7272, Gregkaye, and Flyer22: This article was tag-bombed thoroughly tagged, see below, in July 2014, and these tags still remain on this article. It might be necessary to trim some of the tags that were placed here. Jarble (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Jarble. Leprof 7272 added all those tags, and some editors disagree with his tagging style because he sometimes overtags. Also, cleanup tags are not supposed to be permanent. And there is no need to ping me to this talk page via WP:Echo since it's already on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Recall, I came here at the request of a fellow editor, to perform a review of the citation practices at the article, and added tags as a result of a thorough review of the sourcing of statements in the article. There was nothing drive-by or superficial about this work; I was here working and in dialog over several weeks (not a single day in July), and the analysis consumed a great deal of time. I would ask, in rebuttal of the claim of "bombing", whether there is any basis—what is the evidence of callous disregard, of tossing destructive elements from a distance? (This is more characteristic of Jarble's one visit, than of my earlier work.) And has even the simplest issue, e.g., removing broken links, or adding missing page numbers, yet begun?

If not, what is the basis for removing accurate tags? In a perfect encyclopedic world, this article would just have been taken down; it remains an embarrassment to the encyclopedia, as long as the faux scholarly sourcing remains as it is: e.g., see above, re: ">70 references to books that appear without page numbers—King 2008 and King 2009 (47 refs), Buss, Crain (5), Boccadoro (2)… Stearns Sexuality (6)...". This is "just trust us" writing, not even the quality of good student work at university.

Please feel free, remove any tag whose issue has been resolved. If the tags are accurate, still, they should remain. It is not on my shoulders that they have had no effect of improving quality. Or is what is wanted is an article that is not truly any better, but appears to be so, absent its tags, and so deceives its readers, especially from mobile platforms? What is the basis, besides in superficial, cosmetic improvement, for wanting tags removed for unresolved, substantive issues? It is true, that at some point or points, that this article has been "bombed" with something (peut-être, conneries), but tags, it was not. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Peace made, I hope, at User Talk pages. Best wishes here, and in general. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

For more of what Leprof 7272 means, see this section from my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What is issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7758:5FF0:3C3F:8BCD:4EBE:467A (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Outline for Proposed Changes

The section titled "Sexuality in late Adulthood" has citation issues. Also, the section titled "Creating a Relationship" has citation issues as well This article could also use a reference page. It could use more secondary sources, because it relies too much on the primary source. It also needs page numbers for some of the books referenced. My plans are to add secondary sources to the article, create a reference page, and make sure are the sources are cited properly, with page numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbyNewell (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Abby and welcome to Misplaced Pages. It would be a great contribution if you could improve the citations for this article. I'm not sure what you mean by a "reference page": the list of numbered references here is headed "Footnotes", and below that are "Further reading" and "External links" sections, as normal. If you haven't yet read WP:Citing sources you may find that helpful in your work: Noyster (talk), 19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

AbbyNewell, yes, as noted above on the talk page, this article needs significant cleanup, and has been getting cleaned up bit by bit. I see that you are with Misplaced Pages:Wiki Ed/OSU Newark/Gender, Sex and power (Fall 2015). Any help you can offer with adding good references, especially WP:Secondary sources, to the article would be much appreciated. Same goes for valid content you are looking to add. It's refreshing to see a student editor know the importance of not relying too heavily on primary sources. It's common for student editors and WP:Newbies in general to go overboard with primary sources. As for a "reference page", like Noyster, I'm unsure of what you mean by "reference page"; my first thought on that is that you mean some type of WP:Subpage dedicated to reference works about this topic; if so, that is not how we do things on Misplaced Pages. Well, if the works about aspects of human sexuality are particularly WP:Notable, they could have a Misplaced Pages article. As for any big changes to the article, it is often important for student editors to discuss such plans with more experienced Misplaced Pages editors to ensure that the edits are in compliance with WP:Policies or guidelines. This is for reasons noted at WP:Class assignment. In my opinion, it would be best that you post your proposed additions to be evaluated, either in your sandbox (with a link on this talk page to that sandbox) and/or directly to this talk page. I don't mean any sourcing you plan to do; feel free to go ahead and source unsourced content and trade out poor sources for better sources, tweak references, and so on. And if you want to add valid content to the article, that should be fine as well; see WP:Bold. I'm more so concerned about big changes, including structural design, that may need review from experienced Wikipedians. Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation issues imply content issues, and still remain

@AbbyNewell:@Noyster:@Flyer22:

The citation issues—the earlier repeated calling attention to tens of citations of books not giving page numbers, web sources that are ridiculous in an encyclopedia, etc.—have not, at first glance, been addressed in any substantial, comprehensive way. The article, as a whole, remains far outside of compliance with WP:VERIFY. Unfortunately, there is an enormous amount of hard, slogging, editing yet to be done.

But first, something more critical is required. Whatever bit by bit has been done is meaningless until the cadre of devoted, experienced editors here take a stand, and allow no further addition of:

• material without any source, and of
• material based on non-expert sources, even if arguable that their appearance on a website makes the content published (given that the existing bias of the article toward poor web sources is, as it is). No more ask.com and similar nonsense should appear, period.

This article's subject is a principle, critically important topic in the social sciences, for goodness sake. There are reviews and other good secondary sources abounding. Why not scrutinize every addition, for full adherence to WP:VERIFY, given past loose sourcing? (Not whether it sounds plausible, or is a seeming addition, but is it drawn from a good secondary source, or is it WP:OR?) If a patient is bleeding, and the first course of emergency care is not to staunch the flow of blood, the patient will bleed out before other issues can be addressed. And so here; addition of new material that is not encyclopedic to a high standard only propagates the notion that it is acceptable to use of this article as a dumping ground for any statement or opinion oncoming individuals reading through might wish to make. This flow in the direction of article death must be staunched. A firm position, "No new material without good secondary sourcing." needs be taken.

Then, the same group of devoted editors must begin the arduous process, section by section, paragraph by paragraph, of checking the veracity of existing text. (For this reason, I applaud the initiative suggested by AbbyN, though would suggest working alongside an experienced editor to make sure the WP procedures and styles are learned and used.) I argue the ¶-by-¶, §-by-§ approach for three reasons.

1. Statements without any source still appear;
2. Statements based only on poor sources still appear (though some of this has been improved, as Flyer22 said);
3. Material citing tertiary sources like undergraduate textbooks still is present—and as WP policies and guidelines state, these are also poorer sources for encyclopedic writing; indeed, such sources abound. While allowed to buttress points, important concepts and points should not rest on them. Per WP:VERIFY and other WP sources, tertiary sources amass and interpret information from secondary and primary sources, and are not what the encyclopedia has set as its aim, which is rather, to be based on sets of reliable, esteemed secondary sources.

Finally, material citing books that lack the page numbers required by WP:VER—and in this case, this is the second and third strikes against the King undergraduate textbooks that are repeatedly cited, see Footnotes 3 and 53 (cited about 40 times)—are, as has been noted above, essentially unverifiable. Who can have the time to look for key words from hundreds of sentences in many tens of paragraphs, to see if a book cited sans page numbers does indeed say what the editor suggests? The fact that the original editor could not be bothered to provide page number, and that no one has in the years since, makes such material suspicious. I will go on record as being one that challenges the lot of these King-footnoted sentences; if another one or two joins me in challenging, unless there is a similar well-spring in support of any unsourced of these many statements, they can simply can be removed, per WP:VER.

Finally, in dealing with the book issue, look at the page number improve tag that WP provides (I am elevating it today)—it states 1-2 page range for books. Because such is universally absent, you may as well start over with those paragraphs and sections: Find your own good reviews or graduate school text books, and pull each paragraph, one by one, and replace it with a verifiable new paragraph of content.

All the best. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Leprof 7272/50.179.252.14, while Misplaced Pages articles should mostly be based on secondary sources, use of tertiary sources usually is not a huge problem. The topic of human sexuality usually does not need the same type of sourcing one would see at medical articles (per WP:MEDRS). I do not see where WP:Verifiability (what you call WP:VERIFY) is as against undergraduate textbooks and other tertiary sources as you make it out to be; at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source, it clearly lists "University-level textbooks" as an example of acceptable sources. And WP:TERTIARY states, "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others. Misplaced Pages articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Misplaced Pages articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Misplaced Pages itself (see Category:Misplaced Pages and Category:WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles)."

This edit you made regarding images is inappropriate. Those images do not need citations, as any WP:Anatomy or WP:Med editor other than myself (such as LT910001/Tom, CFCF or WhatamIdoing) would tell you. You do not see citations for images used at the Cervix article or Cancer article, for example.

And while I appreciate your concern for this article, I must reiterate what I and others have stated to you before: All the over-tagging is not needed, and you should start fixing the sourcing issues, etc. yourself instead of repeatedly advising others to do so.

On a side note: WP:Pinging me did not work; I have a new username. I do not need to be pinged to this talk page regardless since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the tags for the images here and [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?

title=Human_sexuality&diff=706522665&oldid=706522236 here.] Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

As I addressed at further length at Flyer22's Talk page, (i) some images already had citations, and these were supported, and improved, and (ii) other citations contain content that is editor-generated or -vetted . In either case, they are adding content. In the first case, the source of the labels, from a published source, are required. I cannot take a photo of myself, and photoshop in labels, and call it authoritative information. The source of an image showing such labels is required. (In chemistry, or anatomy.) In the latter case, the labels appearing in the cribbed image must be checked, and for the article to be encyclopedic, the source against which it is checked needs to be provided. And as I said, (iii) I followed the links, to no authoritative sources, and (iv) per WP:VERIFY, wikilinks do not constitute acceptable sources. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Your diff link appears to be broken. LeP Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, if you can improve it—by all means do so, but if you're only going to tag it with nonsensical banners to extol the inadequacy of the page—you're not helping Misplaced Pages. CFCF 💌 📧 20:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Just as professors who mark papers are of no use to their students? A strange, and not really sensible/rational perspective. The only reason to remove tags for unresolved issues is to "prettify" the article. Do so if you wish, but you are not on firm scholarly or philosophical grounds. What matters is that readers know the state of the article, its real state. And it continues to be in a state where the appearing tags are fully appropriate. Otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. Let's hope for informed, wise opinions, shall we? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, adding these tags for the images is not appropriate. They are common sense cases or cases supported by the click of a wikilink. We do not add citations for cases like these. If I were to start a WP:RfC on it, the consensus would be in my favor. Hopefully, I will not need to start such a WP:RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I have made my case above, and at your Talk page. Please do not argue from commonly understood standards. I place tags daily regarding plagiarism, and plagiarized content is also a widely accepted phenomena. Please argue the merit of the argument—that images can contain content, that content must be sourced, and the worse the provenance of the image, the more likely it is it will need supportive sourcing. The fellow who took the picture of someone's penis and labeled it—is this not beyond the pale? Who says that his parts are to be called what they are labeled here? That is what we must demand to know. Because that is the authority, not the editor providing the selfie/portrature. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you commented on my talk page about this, and the commentary has not managed to convince me of your viewpoint regarding references for these images. I will argue WP:Common sense and WP:Sky is blue in cases when it makes sense to do so. This is an ideal case for such arguments. The male's genitals are labeled correctly. He labeled them that way because those labels are supported by anatomy books that discuss male and female genitals. It's similar to showing a picture of a hand in the Hand article or an apple in the Apple article. I have begun the RfC below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Should the anatomy images or other images have references?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Snow close, for reasons recommended above.

Conclusion: the images do not need references. Maproom (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As seen with this and this link, there is a difference of opinion regarding whether or not the images in the article should have references. For those seeing this RfC from the RfC page or your user talk page (via an RfC alert), the matter is discussed above on the talk page at Talk:Human sexuality#Citation issues imply content issues, and still remain. I will alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Alerted here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment My understanding of WP:V hinges on the words "challenged or likely to be challenged". If the tagging editor has a challenge to these images or their labelling, we need to hear it. Do they feel that the organs portrayed do not represent typical human anatomy? That the labelling is inaccurate? For my part, without a specific challenge to investigate, I can't see a problem. --Nigelj (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• It appears that User:Leprof 7272 is adding these, so perhaps he will show up and explain whether he believes that the labels are wrong. Leprof may also not be aware that WP:CHALLENGE now (as of a couple of years ago) applies only when he believes that it may not be possible for an interested person to find a source: "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable". The focus is on material that cannot be verified by anyone who is willing to spend time and money on the task. It is not about whether or not someone already did it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with above. I do not routinely cite images because they fall under (to me) Misplaced Pages:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue ie most anatomical images are purely definitional with very broad earthly consensus, and we don't routinely cite definitions unless there's some expectation there will be disagreement or contention. The only circumstance where I would value a citation is some of our medical graphs and infoposters. If there is an error in the image I encourage said users to identify the errors so that we improve the page and the encyclopedia in general. Widespread "citation needed" plastering doesn't actually do that. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Refs for images are not typically needed If I take a picture of someone with strep throat and I say they are culture positive, there is no reference for that. Images unlike text are frequently primary sources. They are the one type of primary source we allow / like as there is typically no way around it due to copyright. You cannot paraphrase a picture. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect to the esteemed @Doc James: (Doc), @Nigelj:, @WhatamIdoing:, and @LT910001:

The points I have already made above, before this call for comment, remain unaddressed. If I take a selfie and add labels, the labels are either from a reputable source, or they are WP:OR. Moreover, in this case, the source of the internal anatomical images for male and female are not from reliable, published sources, and the selfie has editor-added labels (as I have already said above). The selfie image is thus one editor's original research, presented without verifiability, and the two "luckymojo" images (see below) demand checking.

I do not care a whit what is generally done, in this case or in general. WikiMedia commons is used broadly and repeatedly to skirt WP:VERIFY by sneaking in content that is not verifiable, all the more perniciously if a picture is indeed worth 1000 words. (And I have said, it matters not to me that plagiarism and unverifiable content is rampantly present at WP, as it is. Such will not change, except one article at a time. And this is one article.)

The question is what is correct to do here, where there is an editor-labeled selfie, and two critical images (see article) from http://www.luckymojo.com/faqs/altsex/vulva.html and http://www.luckymojo.com/faqs/altsex/penis.html —the question is not theoretical, or what is generally needed, but what is to be done here, with the selfie, and in relation to these two cribbed-from-nonsense images. If the content of those images (selfie labels and bad sourced internal anatomy images) is valid, it is because some expert like Doc has checked them against a reliable source as required by WP:VERIFY. All I am asking, is that these sources, those verifying the added label content, be stated. I cannot believe I have to argue this; it is utterly obvious, and a waste of precious life. Le Prof 18:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

And with particular due respect to Doc, every journal figure legend and journal results text I have ever written has been just what he argues cannot be done, a paraphrase of an image. But this is not the point. Yes, Misplaced Pages allows images without explanation. In this case, does it not rise to the degree of ridiculous, in the slefie-plus-OR, and the two just-trust-lucymojo cases? Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You are using the WP:OR policy incorrectly; it is very clear about what is and is not original research, and even has a section about images (WP:OI). The male and female's genitals, which are labeled correctly (with perhaps the exception of the image naming the G-spot, a highly debated area), is not a WP:OR violation, any more than hands in the Hand article are a WP:OR violation, or the forehead in the Forehead article is a WP:OR violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The standard method for verifying the contents of an image – and thus determining whether its labels or description is able to be verified – is to go look at sources and see what they say. If the Misplaced Pages image looks sufficiently similar to what reliable sources say, then the contents of the image and the description is capable of being verified (and thus fully complies with WP:OR and WP:V). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• No image refs needed unless there is a credible good faith challenge that a particular image is not what it claims to be, or a credible good faith challenge that a particular image is being used in some unusual and problematical manner to promote some particular novel idea.

The suggested image ref interpretation of policy would be severely disruptive to the encyclopedia as a whole. Policy IAR overrules any such interpretation. We do not robotically follow pointless or harmful rules for the sake of rules. These are uncontroversially accurate and helpful images.

Original Image policy says images are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. I do not see these images introducing unpublished ideas or arguments.

You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.

WP:Verifiability policy says that only content challenged or likely to be challenged needs to be cited, and when making a challenge state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content. If someone believes File:Penis_with_Labels.jpg is indeed a penis and that the labels are reasonably accurate, it is not a good faith challenged. Alsee (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This seems like the best balance of the considerations involved. It would be highly impractical (and would necessitate a project-wide shift in approach that cannot be mandated in this space) to adopt a policy that all images (of a given article or broadly) require references. It may seem like a logical extension of our verifiability policies, but the fact is, the community has clearly, as a matter of longstanding practice, endorsed the notion that unsourced images are not OR. That said, its equally unfeasible to view this a blanket exception scrutiny/verifiability; to do so would be to invite images as a back door to all manner of claims that could not be introduced otherwise, for lack of reference. Therefore the only reasonable approach seems to be what Alsee suggests here: allow images without references, but in the event that any reasonable, good-faith objection is made to the presence of an image or the suggestion that is representative of a given subject, then it should be removed or the nature of its presentation altered unless sourcing can support that usage (said support being decided through normal consensus processes. Snow 01:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I suggest that the next editor to arrive should apply a SNOW close rather than piling on more !votes. It's currently 6 to 1, and the argument of the 1 is I do not care a whit what is generally done, in this case or in general. That indicates a clear unfamiliarity-with or disregard-for our policies and practices. They had good intentions to make the encyclopedia more strictly Verifiable, but they do not appear to have any basis for a constructive challenge to the images. The images clearly contribute positively to the article, and no one would benefit by removing them as unreferenced. I was temped to apply a SNOW close myself earlier, but I was concerned closing on 4 to 1 might not have carried sufficient weight to firmly end the dispute. Alsee (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

I have just received an RFC to this page. The only discussion I see was closed a week ago. If there is anything that I am required to do, please ping me. If not, please don't bother. JonRichfield (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed of {{Cn}} template.

There is a {{Cn}} template on the claim that in Judaism celibacy is considered sinful. The claim and {{Cn}} can be read two ways. It should be clarified whether the {{Cn}} is for a claim that celibacy per se is sinful, or only for a claim that celibacy within marriage is sinful. In general, celibacy by a single man is considered normal, but a married man has three duties to his wife, one of which is her sexual enjoyment.

Judaism has a niche for a man who wishes be a nazir (ascetic), but that niche does not encompass marriage. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles