Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia'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 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 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 Wikipedia. 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 Anthropology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. 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).

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.

@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. [A scholar in other areas.] 50.179.252.14 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leprof 7272/50.179.252.14, while Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Category:Wikipedia and Category:WikiProject Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

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

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 [labels attached to a self-portrait (editor-generated), or an image cribbed from a third-rate, non-affiliated, non-scholarly web-page (editor-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)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 20:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

…@Flyer22 Reborn:, @Maproom:, @Nigelj:, @WhatamIdoing:, @Doc James:, @LT910001:, @JonRichfield:, @WhatamIdoing:, @Snow Rise:, @Alsee:, I would say, as I already have, that images are a form of content, and contain intellectual assertions which may or may not have authority. Moreover, they are increasingly being used, especially in scientific articles, as policy-end-arounds, to circumvent WP:VERIFY. [In reading the following, in referring to WP:VERIFY and WP:OR, and am not referring to how they are most often applied and interpreted, I am referring to what they state, in their texts, and what they indicate, on most straight-forward reading, is their aim. That is, I am aiming for what those developing the policies and guidelines were aiming for (to a degree, informed by various JW comments and interpretations), and not, a decade later, how they have evolved in application.]

The very fact that Doc can say, "if I take a picture of a strep throat"—as unregistered editors Londoner500 and Coastone did with the appearing selfless of their privates—makes the very point I wish to make. Forget that Doc is an expert, with credentials. Imagine all editors having this freedom, and you have the morass I already see, in place after place in this encyclopedia. That is, we can either restrict the placement of images to the final authority of those experts such as we have in the Doc's of this place, or we can adhere to a policy that will safeguard content edits (image additions) made by "the least of these," our fellow editors.

This is, in fact, in part, informed by a history with, e.g., particular untrained editors running a personal science museum out their garage at home in the EU, who routinely take pictures of their glassware, and place them, with authority, into chemistry articles. Think the same, from laypersons, regarding Doc's medical malady. Shall I, a chemist, take a picture of my DVT-impacted leg, and place it at that article, as an illustration of a limb impacted by a DVT? (Someone has in fact already done this, and we take on faith, and only on faith, that their presentation is an accurate portrayal of medical information. I for one say it is not.) As for me presenting mine—though PhD-trained, and pharma and uni-faculty vetted, I say "No, a thousand times no." I am just an editor. My interpretation of data has no standing. And this is true, whether the data are from primary text sources, or the data are visual/graphic, and my original research (selfie-taking) is the primary source.

I argued all of this, earlier; and despite massive and earnest review and voting, time does not appear to have been taken to address much of my foregoing substance. (Who above, addressed the fact that one of the image sources is luckymojo.com? Please search above.)

The bottom line is that good scientific and medical publishing practice should obtain. Simply put, every journal recognizes images as equally data-rich as text, and therefore as equally intellectual content-containing. An image would never be allowed in Britannica, or a major text, without it being anchored, somehow to authority (the authors credentials being the authority most frequently used). But we do not recognize editorial authority or credentials. Our authority derives from traceability to source. Hence, we should likewise honor the importance and (potential) content-richness of images, as other scientific publishers do, and demand that our image content be authoritative. As authority at WP begins and ends with our stating the authority (source) on which the information is based, I can see no conclusion that image content must be tied to a source.

Hence, if an image is redrawn from another, it should bear "Redrawn from…" and the source (original) should be stated. If an image is based on another, and/or additional sources, it should bear "Based on…" and all contributing sources should be cited. That is to say, the authority on which we conclude, "These are the correct parts of the anatomy, here" (or whatever judgment we make as editors about the image) needs to be provided, otherwise the content of the image is based on WP editor expertise and authority. And that, I think we can all agree is a fundamental no-no. [Consider this as my response to the accusation that I misinterpret WP:OR as it applies to images; you say "if they are correctly labeled". I say, what is your authority for making this call? And why is the case of this intellectual content different from the same judgement of the factual accuracy of a paragraph of text (which does require that we state the source of our confident assertion of content accuracy)?]

Otherwise, image selection and placement is, potentially, all just an end-around, a way to sneak in non-authoritative, or authoritatively suspect material that—simply put—is just a manifestation of WP:OR.

As for the contention that we need worry about sourcing in general, "only when an [editor] believes that it may not be possible for an interested person to find a source" is to relegate this encyclopedia to the rubbish heap, by applying the lowest interpretation of guidelines to all practice. I utterly reject this, and believe those reading, if they give it a moment of thought—high school readers, of whom we demand the ability to verify our content for us?—also will reject this passive, non-authoritative "may not be possible" passage as governing the need for citations in science and medical articles.

Finally, as I have said, I don't care a whit how often this is already being done, or that this is "highly impractical (and would necessitate a project-wide shift in approach that cannot be mandated in this space)"—that is, I don't care how many such WP:OR and WP:VERIFY-violating instances are already in the encyclopedia. With every decision, and every article, we can decide to staunch the bleeding. Here, above we choose to not do so.

So be it. Thus, absent an effort at Wikimedia Commons, to impose uniform sourcing standards for images, the derivative information, in image form, in the encyclopedia, moves WP to becoming more like a "just trust us" blogpost, as it fails to take the substantive intellectual content in images seriously, by taking the extra time of stating sources (if known) and not using images without clear intellectual origin.

What is most galling, is that the self portraits remain, without statement of authority as to the textbook origin of the labels. (No, as a chemist, this sky is not blue—all of these labels are not common knowledge, to the young people who read this article.) In addition, cases where sources were found, initially, as an editorial response, they were removed. (Why? Why must examples of extra care in sourcing be removed?) They've now been returned, as URL-only citations. Help us all. Then, attention was called to other images culled from non-authoritative sources (luckymojo.com). In that case, the response seems to be—whatever the source is/was, I as an editor, can, on my authority, affirm the content, and as I do, no better source than me confirming the content is needed." This, rather than just telling us, how is it that you know, with authority, that the image is what it says it is, and that the labels are correct. I find this rejection of an obvious QC standard, appearing in all other authoritative online educational venues to be simply incomprehensible, and intellectually inconsistent as an approach.

All from me. Cheers. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/women-s-rights/women-s-health-sexual-and-reproductive-rights/my-body-my-rights

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the link is now working as intended. ♫CheChe♫ talk 16:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The start of the second paragraph reads: "Sexual activity is a vital principle of human living that connects the desires, pleasures, and energy of the body with a knowledge of human intimacy." Should this sentence really be here? It seems profoundly unscientific / waffly. Does it have a purpose? What does it even mean? CheCheDaWaff (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It says nothing, in addition to a profoundly cringy use of the word "energy". Removing. If someone takes issue with it they can bring it up here. TimothyJosephWood 12:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I was, removing the following sentence as well as it is just a piggy back which also says little or nothing. TimothyJosephWood 12:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood:, @CheCheDaWaff:, Thank you both for this work. Out of curiosity, did the earlier sentence cite a source? If so, what did the source actually say? Acceptance or rejection of content should in large part not be ultimately tied to our "ear," but to whether it is appropriately derived from a reputable source, and whether it accurately reflects the content of that source. (Asked, because the sourcing of this article remains an issue.) Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern Le Prof. Having looked at the history (from May 2), I can confirm that the sentences in question had no citation(s). --CheCheDaWaff (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

…because it was removed, with no effort having been made to solve the problem, which remains egregious. Contrary to @Doc James: assertion, many tens of examples of books completely without page numbers remain—see refs 3, 8, 18, 20, 57, 77, 87. And the matter has gotten worse, since Doc's tag removal. (Another book was added, again with no page numbers.) There are clear policies about removing tags. Click on the link appearing in the tag, to see when it is appropriate to remove this tag. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freud made his career on sexuality. John Locke never wrote a single thing on human sexuality. Linking him to the subject is original research, (WP:OR). The history of Nature versus nurture arguments is another topic. Mrdthree (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning it up User:Flyer22 although as written it implies John Locke said something about human sexuality or instincts, that would need a reference. He is just 'representing' the idea of tabula rasa in education (he was a 1600s guy). Mrdthree (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heres a referenced quote from him on sexuality to include: "God, in this text, gives not, that I see, any authority to Adam over Eve, or to men over their wives, but only foretells what should be woman's lot, how by his providence he would order it so, that she should be subject to her husband, as we see that generally the law of mankind and customs of nations have ordered it so; and there is, I grant, a foundation in nature for it." (Divine Authority and the Law of Nature, http://praxeology.net/LockeNatLaw.htm) Mrdthree (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if early behaviorists (Watson) addressed the topic though Skinner does. It would be a challenge to find the first behaviorist response to Freud.Mrdthree (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That said it still needs major rewriting to be accurate--I dont think the behaviorist school would talk about developing sex drives. they would talk about training sexual behavior with pleasure. What makes Freud a nature guy is also a little confusing in the summary, he sees all these instincts in people waiting to be impressed with the specific details of the mother and father. --Mrdthree (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060220110820/http://www2.hu-berlin.de:80/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/INDEXATLAS.HTM to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/INDEXATLAS.HTM
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080521085828/http://www.kinseyinstitute.org:80/ccies/ to http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/ccies/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked these links are working correctly --♫CheChe♫ talk 16:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]