Talk:Macrophilia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Helen Friedman analysis in Salon

1. Dudebro [Named blanked for privacy] obliterates a Salon source, saying all up in my grill it "fails WP:V due to WP:QS and there is consensus that Salon is WP:BIASED, in addition the assertion itself has WP:REDFLAG." All right, let's have a look. At WP:RSPSOURCES, it's "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." The entry [Named blanked for privacy] is overjoyed to obliterate isn't WP:REDFLAG. It's an opinion from a clinical psych, and whoever added it added attribution. WP:RSPSOURCES and WP:VOICE both support this type of entry as acceptable. Why do you want to remove Friedman's speculation, but not Griffiths's speculation? Salon isn't self-published, so stop calling it that.

2. [Named blanked for privacy] complains about the entry reporting on the patriarchy. He claims that "the assertion that 'we live in a patriarchal society' in itself is view as an extremist position." It's not. It's the mainstream position. See the patriarchy page. It's an everyday fact. Humorous still, the Salon entry on the page doesn't talk about the patriarchy.

3. [Named blanked for privacy] attempted to make there appear to be more women in the macro community than there are. This is against policy and current consensus. There are maybe two to three women in the macro community here where I am, and it's like that everywhere.

4. [Named blanked for privacy] falsely claimed that my edits were possibly WP:VAND.

5. I'm going to list this dispute at WP:THIRD. 204.69.235.144 (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps my assertion that your edit was WP:VAND was a bit premature as a vandal would not take the time to try and start meaningful discussion on the matter on a talk page, given that you are an IP address who only has edited this page and one of the few edits you have made involved using some randoms internet blog as a citation I think it would be more appropriate to say that you are simply new to wikipedia and therfor inexperienced. So in that case, first off, Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope this serves as a learning experience for you. Now allow me to address each of the points you made.

Regarding your first point, the Salon opinion regarding this is a WP:REDFLAG, a previous archived discussion on the matter saw people from that community come out in force to challenge the claims made, while the discussion ultimately went nowhere as it devolved into one particular wikipedian who prior to retiring was known for WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour accusing everyone in that community of being meatpuppets, what it does suggest is that the assertion Salon, or specifically Friedman, made is contradicted by the prevailing view of the relevant community. In addition the claim is rather out there because it is based on the assertion that we live in a "patriarchal society", the claim that we live in a society where females are actively prevented from attaining positions of power by some pro-male conspiracy against them is at best a strongly contested theory (at least in the western world, the patriarchy is definitely real in places such as the middle east) and at worst a fringe theory that is propagated almost exclusively by radical feminists and hard left fringe groups. Because of these reasons, the claim is WP:REDFLAG and requires exceptional sources. I do not consider Salon an exceptional source because it is not a mainstream source, its the only source which makes this claim (WP:REDFLAG states exception claims require multiple high quality sources) and it is a source agreed to have a left leaning bias and therfor an agenda. Its also worth mentioning that another claim Friendman made in the Salon article regarding the reason macrophiles develop this paraphilia was contradicted by an interview with a macrophile Salon did in the same article who totally rejected Friendman's claims, which further supports that Friedman's claims are contradicted by the relevant community and therfor is a WP:REDFLAG.

Regarding your second point, Yes, the idea that we live in a society that actively seeks to prevent woman from attaining positions of power is an extremist position. As I said above, at best its hotly contested and at worst its a fringe theory propagated by hard left fringe groups such as radical sects of third wave feminism. WP:FRINGE is very clear about how we must deal with fringe theories, and that is to not present the fringe theory in a way that makes it appear to be more widely accepted then it actually is. Wikipedia is not validating source for fringe theories. Additionally did you even read the Salon article you are fighting so hard to defend? I am inclined to believe you didnt or you just skimmed over it because your claim that "The salon article doesn't even mention the patriarchy" is false. The Salon article specifically mentions the patriarchy in the same paragraph the quote on the current article is lifted from. "We live in a patriarchal culture" is quoted right before the quote about woman already viewing men as powerful.

Regarding your third point, Where or how did I try to imply that there was more female macrophiles then there actually was? I fail to see your angle here. Additionally WP:FALSEBALANCE is precisely the reason why I take such issue with Salon's claim. As I stated above, Wikipedia is not meant to be a validating source for fringe theories. The central reasoning behind Friedman's claim is that we live in a patriarchal society and because of this woman are not as often macrophiles because the patriarchy makes them view men as powerful already. A much more mainstream and commonly accepted reasoning why there is not as many female macrophiles is simply because paraphilias in general are an overwhelmingly male thing. Also to say that the previous "discussion" on the topic represents current consensus is laughable. That was hardly a discussion than a flamewar between macrophiles and a particularly hostile veteran wikipedian, there was no outcome of that discussion, just both sides insisting that they are right and the other is wrong. Perhaps you have not personally met as many female macrophiles, but you claiming to have only met two or three is not a valid source, its personal experience and even if your personal experience is aligned with everyone elses experience in that community, your personal experience does not grand validity to the purported reasoning for that being the case as having something to do with the patriarchy keeping woman out of positions of power in real life society.

I personally believe the Salon source is not valid and should be totally strucken from the page. I am willing to concede to the third opinion that perhaps paraphrasing may be an appropriate solution as opposed to outright removal, but I am still iffy about this because of the WP:REDFLAG issue. - [Named blanked for privacy] 01:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: Salon is on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but Helen Friedman seems to be a notable figure for her opinion (AGF with that biography which could use better citations). Perhaps this might be more acceptable with a little rephrasing? It seems like the problem might be women in most societies already view men as dominant and powerful. Does this mean "all women in most societies" or "some women in most societies"? How about rephrasing to "psychologist Helen Friedman theorized that women who already view men as dominant and powerful have no need to fantasize about it." Would that work? Put another way, if patriarchy is the mainstream position, then there's no need to mention it; the reader will assume that much. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

A lot of good sources are on that list. So Salon's presence on the list is no strike against the source. I think your suggestion changes what Freidman is saying, as she's saying women generally view men that way and this is why (or a reason why) there are few women in the macro communities, but I added your suggestion. You know, I was going to say I don't think telling people that women generally view men this way is speaking about patriarchy by default, but I just looked at the source material and she does say we live in a patriarchal culture.

Thank you. 204.69.235.144 (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think what that list is saying about Salon is to treat it with caution and evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. (Whereas the red entries are discouraged or banned.) So it's not a bad thing to discuss it here on the talk page, which is in line with the bold-revert-discuss cycle (WP:BRD). Be careful about combining statements from sources (see WP:SYNTH). – Reidgreg (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

[Named blanked for privacy], the dispute was resolved. IMO, you had time to comment earlier, but you waited. Your points are contested interpretations of the protocols and reality. Now that I did WP:THIRD, we can do WP:RFC if you want.

Salon isn't a random Internet blog. There wouldn't be Wikipedia discussions about it if it were so obscure. You're wrong about the source. The reason you're wrong about what the archived discussion symbolizes is that it's based on what the sources put out and rules in the face of macro advocacy. The "prevailing view of the relevant community" can't be determined by random macro editors showing up around the same time and claiming they have no connection. When multiple editors say those macro users were meatpuppets, you can't put that point of view on one editor, bro.

One useful thing you said is "A much more mainstream and commonly accepted reasoning why there is not as many female macrophiles is simply because paraphilias in general are an overwhelmingly male thing." This is said in the archived discussion, but you've dismissed that discussion in the same breath. The veteran editors in that discussion have the sources and rules on their side, while the macro users were hyped based on their personal experience and fairness that doesn't exist in Wikipedia parlance. My personal experience of seeing few female macros is a corroboration of the sources. If I wanted to die on the hill of personal experience, I wouldn't have said anything about sources saying how rare female macros are.

The "prevailing view of the relevant community" must be determined by the sources, and the sources are always sure to say how rare female macros are. This means your "gender neutral" edits violate the site protocols. You're 1000x wrong about patriarchy. You know it. If you weren't wrong about patriarchy, you'd go and challenge the patriarchy page like others have tried to do, but you know you'd get push-back. Incel and MRM guys deny patriarchy. I don't think you're an incel guy. Are you with the MRM? You'll need luck to get multiple non-MRM editors to say that patriarchy is a fringe theory. I said the entry on the macrophilia page doesn't mention patriarchy, not that the Salon article doesn't mention it. 204.69.235.144 (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Disputes are not "resolved" because a party in the dispute doesn't respond instantly. Thats not how this works at all, I understand you are new to wikipedia but discussions are permitted to continue for as long as they take. WP:THIRD is not binding. Just because a third party states their opinion that does not mean that the entire discussion is resolved in favor of whatever the third party expresses. Thats now how WP:THIRD or anything related to discussions about this sorta stuff works on this site. The third party did not even comment on the WP:REDFLAG issue or the fact that its promoting a fringe theory. Just the wording of the attribution.

I never stated Salon was a random internet blog, what are you even on about? Are you talking about where I revoked your edits to a completely different part of the article because your citation was some random wix blog which isnt permitted as a source?

The prevailing view of the relevant community can also be seen in the article you are so eager to defend as valid. Look at the section of the article where they interview the creator of a macrophilia website. He rejected the claims Friedman made, granted he rejected a similar point about how this paraphilia develops but the fact that there is opposition to the assertions made which is cited by this article is indicative that Friedman's understanding of the macrophilia community is contrary to the prevailing view of the relevant community. So lets say a whole bunch of macrophiles coming to wikipedia to contest Salon previously isnt evidence, how about when a source you insist is valid shows this? Either way, WP:REDFLAG stands and Salon is not an exception source. If the prevailing view must be determined by sources, then Salon is your your source and Salon says Friedman is wrong.

Also you are fundamentally misunderstanding how WP:NPOV works. I get you are new to this site so I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply misunderstanding how WP:NPOV works and are not outright interpreting it incorrectly on purpose. NPOV requires that we do not give false imbalance to extremist viewpoints and imply that extremist positions are more popularly accepted then they actually are. The idea that for one, we live in a society that actively seeks to keep woman out of positions of societal power in the first place and two, that is the reason why there isn't as many female macrophiles to begin with is an extremist position because it has its genesis in fringe views. Also, starting a dispute on a different articles page is not proper procedure, again I get you are new to wikipedia so you arent that familiar with how our policies work but nobody maintaining that page wants spillover from a dispute on a different article.

Finally, you aren't going to get anywhere or give validity to your statements by accusing opponents in disputes of having an agenda. I am not apart of any extremist male rights movement, if anything I consider myself left leaning politically which is way beyond a far right movement like MRM.

I'd like to ask that you please re-read the comment I initially made fully, not just skim over it like you did before and did with the article you are defending, because given you think that I was calling Salon a random blog when I wasnt and that most of the points I made you have not even addressed leads me to believe that you didnt properly read anything I just said. So before you respond, read fully.

In fact now that I am reading further and looking at other pages on Paraphilias I am inclined to believe that the focus on how male centric this paraphilia in itself is is improper considering that other articles on Paraphilias do not give nearly as much emphasis on this. Paraphilias being an overwhelmingly male thing to begin with is a mainstream position already and is generally accepted so it probably doesnt need to be mentioned to the degree its mentioned here. [Named blanked for privacy] 12:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Friedman's comment comes from a psychologist and has WP:In-text attribution. If it was just some Salon writer's comment, it'd be undue, but Salon is enough of a reliable source to relay that. I also therefore feel that it should stay. Oh, and that Western society is patriarchal is by no means a fringe theory. It is closer to the mainstream view than to crankery amongst the relevant experts. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Given that you are a more experienced editor then that IP address above I'll take your word for it. I don't agree with it and think it gives undue weight to what is really a bit of a stretch in terms of theories in the face of a more plausible and more widely accepted explanation that paraphilias in general are just an overwhelmingly male thing to begin with but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I withdraw my dispute and i'll accept the current article as consensus. [Named blanked for privacy] 03:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

[Named blanked for privacy], bro, you said you understand I'm new to Wikipedia. Your contributions tell on a guy who hasn't edited much at all. I think your arguments reflect that. So why pretend you're all that much more experienced than I am?

You, [Named blanked for privacy], said to me "the idea that we live in a society that actively seeks to prevent woman from attaining positions of power is an extremist position." The patriarchy page doesn't say that at all. It says patriarchy "is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property." Do men hold primary power and predominate in almost all societies? Show me strong sources that say they don't.

You, [Named blanked for privacy], said to me "The third party did not even comment on the WP:REDFLAG issue or the fact that its promoting a fringe theory. Just the wording of the attribution." But Reidgreg said "Salon is on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but Helen Friedman seems to be a notable figure for her opinion (AGF with that biography which could use better citations)." So Reidgreg didn't agree with you. Should we ask him?

You, [Named blanked for privacy], said to me you "never stated Salon was a random internet blog." Bro, you said "given that you are an IP address who only has edited this page and one of the few edits you have made involved using some randoms internet blog as a citation." Which random Internet blog were you referring to if you weren't talking about Salon? That's the source we've been discussing. The video game and real-world experience entries weren't mine, kay. I only put back in what I'd inadvertently removed.

You, [Named blanked for privacy], argued again for the prevailing view of the relevant community. Hey, now, people with paraphilias disagree with the experts or other more qualified people all the time. Do you know how many people with paraphilias don't want their paraphilia to be called a paraphilia?

You, [Named blanked for privacy], said to me "Also you are fundamentally misunderstanding how WP:NPOV works." Strike that. I bet you 1000x I'm right on the money. The rules show I am, and two other opinions so far show I am. When you said that patriarchy is an extremist position, let me tell you I knew more than ever I was on the right side of the argument. I didn't call for you to start a dispute on a different article page. I wanted you to know, bro, that if you really thought you were right about patriarchy, you would have already tried to change that page. You won't try to change it, and we both know why you won't try to change it.

You made the same argument as someone from the archived discussion by saying it's unnecessary for this page to tell readers that this paraphilia is male-centric. You're wrong because the sources put the spotlight on how male-centric this paraphilia happens to be. With some other paraphilias, the male-to-female ratio isn't as heavily male as it is for this one. Since sources put the spotlight on how male-centric this paraphilia happens to be, Wikipedia is supposed to do it too. If we don't, we give the impression that women are as into this as men are. And in any case, most people don't know that paraphilias are typically male-centric. 204.69.235.144 (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

See my response to Crossroads. I'm frankly not interested in arguing with you after all that malding you did. Crossroads, an editor who, unlike yourself, is an experienced editor gave a reasonably worded counter-argument without the mald. My intent on this site is to contribute to wikipedia for the betterment of the site as a whole, not to "own the libs" in talk pages. Unless an issue with another part of this article is brought up, this will be my last response regarding the matter. [Named blanked for privacy] 11:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)