Talk:Soaking (sexual practice)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 10 October 2021 by reviewer QuantumRealm (talk · contribs).

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Non-existence of loophole

The article should include actual church teachings on chastity, such as forbidding heavy petting and any sexual relationship before marriage. There is not a loophole that provides for “soaking”. Most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have never heard of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.98.145.244 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a LDS source that represents the Mormon position on the issue, including what you mentioned above, but was reverted by User:Pastelitodepapa. As of now this article violates WP:NPOV by peddling this loophole myth and not offering the LDS Church's position on this issue. Anupam^Talk 19:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the good faith (WP:GOODFAITH) edits because what you had added in those two edits was essentially a blog post. Please see WP:RSUW and WP:UGC. Additionally, the article already stated the LDS Church's position on this issue, and has for a long time: "The LDS Church teaches that 'it is wrong to touch the private ... parts of another person’s body even if clothed' outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage." Is there any current specific violations of WP:NPOV? Please discuss and modify/improve the article if so. Pastelitodepapa (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and for your willingness to work together. I think that we can at least incorporate some of the information from my original edit as LDS Quotations meets the criteria outlined in WP:SELFSOURCE (though I would consider the source myself to meet the secondary source criteria outlined at WP:RS). The claims come from an LDS author and can be WP:ATTRIBUTED to him (or LDS Quotations). That will be helpful to balance out the media claims about soaking being a "loophole" in the law of chastity, etc. In my view, this balance is much needed; in addition to me, three other editors have noticed that this article does not currently represent the LDS position accurately, with the first example being in the original post here, and the following other examples here and here. If you would like, you can make an attempt to restore at least some of that information with wording that you find suitable. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to include some statements from existing secondary sources discounting the purported loophole theory to better drive home the previous sentence of the church's stance on extramarital sexual behavior. I hope this better balances the article in the way your good faith edits were doing while still citing secondary sources.

I still think a blog post source would be inappropriate here as WP:SELFSOURCE is only for "sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" (i.e. a Wikipedia article about Max Pond himself), and "It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)" which would include making statements about what the LDS Church teaches or believes. Additionally, WP:ATTRIBUTED states, "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: ... it does not involve claims about third parties". And again Pond is making claims about what the LDS Church teaches in this blog's "self-published source ... that provides little or no editorial oversight". Even if Pond is correct (which he seems to be IMO), it's better to defer to statements from secondary sources on Wikipedia articles, such as those I have cited in my recent edit. I hope that makes sense. Pastelitodepapa (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do view your recent edits as an improvement. I think for now, we can place the LDS Quotations link in the "External links" section of the article as you currently find it not suitable for the article body. Anupam^Talk 03:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with including it in the article ever, not just currently for now, for the many reasons I cited above (e.g. WP:RSUW, WP:UGC, and the quoted sections from WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:ATTRIBUTED) but will leave it for another editor to discuss to seek WP:CONSENSUS. Am I the only one that thinks citing/linking this random blog post is not encyclopedic in this situation, especially with lots of non-self-published sources available? Pastelitodepapa (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: I would agree that a blog should not be used as a reference or included in the "External links" section. That's especially true given that there are better sources, but even if there were not, that would not be a green light to go ahead with a blog. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will remove the blog external link. Pastelitodepapa (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jury Duty freevee show

This topic shows up in jury duty episode 5 2601:188:C300:B740:4CCD:C0CD:B347:8ED (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YOUSAWIT?? Toddst1 (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article now mentions the Jury Duty episode mentioned and cites a secondary source. Thank you for the heads up. Pastelitodepapa (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mormons typically dismiss the practice as urban legend.

I don't know how you would show it with sources, but any time the topic is ever brought up among Mormons it's always in the context of other urban legends, such as stories about Three-Nephite sightings and apocalypse predictions in patriarchal blessings. Everyone has heard about it. Everyone knows someone who knows someone else whose brother's roommate's cousin did it. But nobody seems to have actually done it themselves. Here's a reddit thread. https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/j7lkk5/soaking_is_it_real/?rdt=58290 160.2.168.216 (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article now states "News sources do not report it being a common practice, and some Latter-day Saints have said that soaking is an urban legend and not an actual practice.[1][4]", and "The LDS Church teaches that "it is wrong to touch the private ... parts of another person’s body even if clothed" outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage.[13][14] Some news sources directly state that the LDS Church and its adherents do not believe soaking is a loophole to the church's code of sexual conduct.[1][4]" Hopefully that addresses the concerns about sources stating that soaking is an urban legend while citing non-self-published sources.Pastelitodepapa (talk)

Mention of "BYU Virginity Club and the BYU Slut Club"

@Pastelitodepapa: Following up on the reversion of my removal of the sentence: At least two unofficial BYU clubs have disavowed the practice including the BYU Virginity Club and the BYU Slut Club. My edit summary said: Both of these are parody/fictitious internet presences which the referenced articles fell for. In your edit summary you invited me to respond on this talk page: If you believe the sources are incorrect you'll need sources per WP:BURDEN to remove the sourced material. Please take this to the talk page if you have secondary sources backing your statements.

I do believe I have sources: [1] (slate.com, "Is the Brigham Young University Virginity Club for Real? An Investigation." concluding "Funny, absolutely. Real, absolutely not."); [2] (saying the Slut Club "appears to be a parody account").

What would you suggest doing here? On one hand, the "criticism" stated by anonymous social media accounts doesn't deserve a mention, and given that they're satire, what they said about the matter can't really be taken as straight-faced "criticism" anyway. On the other hand, I could see an argument for including a discussion of all of this as relevant to the article, perhaps renaming the section something like "Reactions".

By the way, I read WP:BURDEN and I didn't see any guidance about removing sourced material, but I understand your concern. Micler (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information and sources. I stand corrected, and have implemented your suggestions and sources into the article. Feel free to improve/modify. Pastelitodepapa (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be deleted

This article fails Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability. The whole thing is conjecture on top of rumor. Dustinscottc (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. 100.38.140.35 (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]