Jump to content

Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Sexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pearle (talk | contribs) at 02:45, 22 July 2006 (Update list of articles in need of various kinds of attention). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sexuality

See also: Wikipedia:LGBT notice board

  • To be manually moved to article's talk page or deleted:
  • Rind et al. has a completely inappropriate title, the first name of one of the authors of a scientific journal article. It seems to have been singled out because some pedophiles see it in support of their fight for the right to have sex with children. Other scientific material in the area of child sexual abuse and pedophilia is neglected. Get-back-world-respect 07:35, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Then again, that does seem to be how the '98 study is referenced, and one might argue it merits an article for its infamy. +sj+ 14:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Whether the name is appropriate or not, there are issues with the article content. This article is to come under the purview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch shortly. Herostratus 17:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leather virgin -- it's in the list of lifestyles, and I got mad that there was no article, so I took my best guess. That my guess makes sense makes it worse, I suppose, since "a leather virgin is a type of chicken" would be obviously wrong. I put an accuracy warning because I could be completely off-base; surely someone does know, however. --Charles A. L. 23:39, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd just merge that stubby puppy into "List of BDSM terms". It doesn't seem worth an article. — RJH 00:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Egale Canada is taken right off of Egales website BUT was done so by someone within the organization. Needs NPOV, Wification, layout management, and fleshing out. Arcuras 17:54, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Furvert -- This article is currently extremely hateful and POV, and it needs someone who understands the idea of a "furvert" to both fix it and add more information to it. I am also tempted to guess at some inaccuracy here (I thought furverts by definition were furries?). I would make an attempt to fix it myself except I am accused of being "anti-furry" and "spreading misinformation" anytime I touch a furry-related article these days. --Krishva 06:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • History of lesbianism needs a great deal of work by someone who is familiar with the subject and can exercise good editing skills. Right now, it looks like a combination of original research and unsupported POV. There have been some good contributions but overall the page is a mess. Ande B 02:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add text below this point