Talk:Non-consensual condom removal: Difference between revisions

This article 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 C‑class Low‑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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-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. Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-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. Medicine: Reproductive C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

I've undone a merge of this article with reproductive coercion. As I understand it from reading the sources, the motive for this is generally pure selfishness, with reckless disregard for the consequences, rather than a deliberate attempt at reproductive coercion. In particular, this act can happen between two male sex partners, in which case pregnancy is not possible. A narrow distinction perhaps, but one we should make. -- The Anome (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Trends suggests this term was first published on the Internet circa April 24, 2017. Before, the term didn't exist. Wikipedia's policy on neologism should apply to this article. --Saledomo (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following the source, it seems like this paper is the source of the term: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2954726, which was posed Apr 20, 2017. --Saledomo (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an earlier example of use of the term within the gay community in 2012. -- The Anome (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:NEO case. I don't think it needs its own article. It can be merged with an existing article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - it is not a Neologism - it is a scientific term being used for different things in different fields (in computer science, chemistry and - as far as I can tell - in the medical fields . What might be needed is a differentiation.

Here a few examples from scientific publications

* Generationing, Stealthing, and Gift Giving: The Intentional Transmission of HIV by HIV-Positive Men to their HIV-Negative Sex Partners | Health Psychol Res. 2014 Nov 6;

*  Sexual Practise and HIV in Uganda: The Search For “Live Sex” BMJ Journals | Published in print 1 July 2013. --ChristopheT (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a neologism. Neologisms are new (or relatively new) and (relatively) isolated terms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you are defining "new." But any word that is only a few or several years old is new. And it's clear that this term is an isolated term in addition to being new. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it is new : "Detecting subtle system changes using digital signatures C Hosmer, M Duren" - Information Technology Conference, 1998 | "Progress in development of herpes simplex virus gene vectors for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis" JC Glorioso, D Krisky, P Marconi, 1997 and so on. I also don't see any form of "isolation". -- ChristopheT (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've argued that it's new. And "isolated" in this context means that it is not in widespread or common use. As for the latest source you cited, what does it state? If it's not using the term the way the Wikipedia article uses it, it's not the same thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not using the term the way the Wikipedia article uses it I agree - as mentioned above - the term is being used for different things depending on the context / field. I believe something like a disambiguation page would be appropriate (military, information technology, chemistry ect.) I am happy to contribute to stealthing in information technology - but I am afraid I lack the necessary knowledge for the other areas. I also do not have any experience creating WP:DAB pages and rather leave that to someone with more experience. --ChristopheT (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO says that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that articles on neologisms frequently are about the term, not the idea. Further it says that such articles are often meant to make the term more popular. Last it says we should demonstrate that the term is used by secondary sources and make sure the article is about the idea, not the term.

While this is a neologism, this article does not appear to run afoul of NEO. The sources used are about the concept, not just uses of the term. Further, the article is about the concept and not just a definition of the term. The article needs work, though, to expand its content. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed to WP:NEO and to the Neologism article to get my point across, which is that the term is indeed a neologism and that Wikipedia generally discourages articles on neologisms. I additionally argued that I do not see that this topic needs its own article. You know, WP:No page and all that. But I see that you have been working on the article, and this includes expanding it. I currently have less of an issue with the article being a standalone article, but I'm still not convinced that it needs to be its own article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm done for tonight but will try to add to it tomorrow. I think if we focus on the phenomenon, we can get the article to a decent state. I'm thinking we might want to move it to Non-consensual condom removal as a broader term as Brodsky suggests. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is some concern on calling this a "practice". Can we use some neutral word, like "act"? --Nemo 19:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemo bis: Seems like a better description anyway. Would support change. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is a moral panic, but can't find any articles that point out that it's stupidly uncommon. Just a bunch of articles all released around the same time condemning it. Yes it's awful behavior, if it's actually happening, but like rainbow parties I think the articles about it are causing it to happen more often than it actually did before the panic. 75.168.152.43 (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, condoms do occasionally fall off by accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.152.43 (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted ChocolateRabbit's move of this page, per discussion above. If ChocolateRabbit wants the page moved, ChocolateRabbit should start a WP:Requested moves discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected this page for a month, following what seem to be repeated attempts by an IP-hopping editor to re-insert the same uncited material, in spite of references elsewhere in the article that do not support it. -- The Anome (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here, Patient Zero claimed that I was being unconstructive. I was merely returning the article to its sourced version. I didn't commit vandalism or remove any sourced content. On my talk page, the editor claimed I'd violated MOS:GENDER.[1] This is incorrect. MOS:GENDER doesn't mean we undermine sources and say both men and women engage in this act. To date, there is no proof that women engage in this act. All of the research and media reports are about men doing this. Presumably, that's why Crossroads made this edit. MOS:GENDER says to use gender-neutral language "where this can be done with clarity and precision" and this does not apply to "wording about one-gender contexts." Implying that non-consensual condom removal is a gender-equal/gender-neutral phenomenon is not clarity and precision. It's just plain false. What Patient Zero and others who support gender-neutral language for this act are doing is like going to the rape page and insisting that we can't say that it's overwhelmingly committed by men. Although the rape page doesn't say that only men rape, there's proof that women also rape. There is literally no proof that women engage in non-consensual condom removal. It's speculation only.

Patient Zero's edit also removed my grammar fixes, and the editor has let them stay. 103.77.192.228 (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]