Talk:Lesbian bed death/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Lesbian bed death. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Supposed origin of the term
As seen here, here and here, Scoundr3l added material to the lead about the origin of the term. I opposed the material being in the lead not only because the material is dubious, but also because, per WP:LEAD, material that is not covered lower in the article should not be in the lead..."apart from basic facts." The text in question is not a basic fact. The sources do not state that Jade McLeughlin coined the term, and other sources, such as this and this one, refer to Pepper Schwartz as having coined the term. That latter source goes one step further and states that both Schwartz and Philip Blumstein coined the term. Furthermore, since Jade McLeughlin has no Wikipedia article, readers will ask themselves: "Who is Jade McLeughlin"? Having the content in the lead was clearly WP:Undue weight. WP:Undue weight states, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." This is also why the lone section Scoundr3l created for the material (tweak to it by me here) is undue weight. And per MOS:Paragraphs, single sentences generally do not need a heading. There is no reason why this material should not go in the Society and culture section instead (where I tried to place it) with text noting that while author Suzanna Rose believes that the term lesbian bed death was first publicly uttered by Jade McLeughlin during a speech at a 1987 NGLTF rally at George Washington University, or that [so and so] believe McLeughlin was the first person to publicly utter the term, sources state that Schwartz (or Schwartz and Blumstein) coined it. It is not such an important aspect that it should come first in the article in its own section, especially given the dubious nature of who coined the term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well, let's start with the obvious. WP:DUE has no bearing on the accuracy of the claim. There are no viewpoints to consider, it's either accurate or it's not. Incidentally, there are conflicting reliable sources, which is already covered by WP:YESPOV "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." That's fine by me, I usually treat most statements (especially about social phenomena with little academic headway) with some degree of gray area, which is why I phrased it as "may have" despite the fact that my reliable sources clearly state that it was first uttered in 1987. The only significant counter claim is that it was coined by Pepper Schwartz in American Couples. That's an understandable if not lazy conclusion which can easily be shown as false. In fact, I believe this article made that claim until about January of this year. I don't think it was you that directly fixed it, but you worked on the improvements, so I don't think anyone had much contention with the fact that Schwartz did not coin the phrase in her book as yellow sources like heapsgay.com may claim. Assuming we're all here to improve the article, a little editorial discretion goes a long way. If you truly believe there's weight to the claim that Schwartz coined the phrase in American Couples, why not add it to the article? Can't give due weight to a claim that doesn't even exist. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- With regard to "WP:DUE has no bearing on the accuracy of the claim," a claim can be dubious per different viewpoints. It's partly why WP:Verfiability states, "When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." In this case, you had worded the text so that it stated that Jade McLeughlin coined the term. Yes, you first used "may have been coined by," but then you used "was coined by" after I stated that "the content is based on 'might' and is dubious." I pointed to sources above showing that others state differently on that matter. Then again, your sources don't support that Jade McLeughlin coined the term anyway; so I reworded the text to state "believes that it was first publicly uttered by." As for adding the "Pepper Schwartz coined the term" aspect to the article, it was a suggestion that it be added if we are to keep the Jade McLeughlin piece. I see that you added it (followup edit here). To answer your edit summary question on that, yes, I can be fine with it, but I still believe that it's an unnecessary section and that the material would be better covered in the Society and culture section. It would also make it so that psychologist and sex therapist Suzanne Iasenza is still first mentioned at her most relevant spot -- the spot in the "Other findings and criticism" section. Readers sometimes forget names when reading or they sometimes skip to sections. So I think that Suzanne Iasenza being known in that section as a psychologist and sex therapist is best. But I'd rather not have us forgo mentioning her professions in the "Origin of the term" section and then first mention them in the "Other findings and criticism" section, or to mention them both times. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's almost the same policy I quoted above, so I don't think we disagree there. The initial concern just seemed a little vague and mercurial. First it appeared to be an issue was with it being in the lead. There's no strong argument against mentioning the origin of a term in the lead. It's part of the 5 Ws, which is what basic fact means in this context,. This is easily attested to by general practice and plenty of other quality articles. Then the accuracy was disputed. There are a number of ways we can handle that: reword it, tag it, discuss it, even delete it. Moving it to another part of the article is about the only option that doesn't fix it. Finally, you mentioned due weight. As I said before, we can't reasonably balance one claim against another that doesn't exist in the article. The phrase "lesbian bed death" doesn't appear in American Couples, as some sources claim. I think you'd have to willfully ignore that in order to find a way that coining a phrase doesn't necessitate first publicly uttering it. But I'll grant you that the ambiguity is there. And even if the sources are wrong, of course there is a verifiable counter claim that Pepper Schwartz coined it, although I've chosen to drop "American Couples" from the text in the hopes that maybe she coined it elsewhere. Presumably in writing so as not to publicly utter it. Current wording works for me. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- WP:Due is the policy to look to when it comes to mentioning the origin of a term in the lead. An origin of a term is usually not mentioned in the lead of our Wikipedia articles unless the article is about the term (rather than the concept). This is because the origin of the term usually is not significant enough for a mention in the lead. In this case, it certainly is not significant enough. And mentioning it in the lead is even more questionable, given that who coined the term is dubious. But even when an article is about the term, we still commonly include the origin in an Etymology section lower in the article rather than in the lead. As for the rest, I obviously had more than one issue with the text. Giving it its own section is an issue for reasons stated above -- WP:Due and MOS:Paragraphs. A number of editors would agree. There is no need to create a section for a little bit of material when it can fit well in another section, especially when its dubious material. Like I stated above, WP:Due applies to placement of text as well. Giving this little bit of material its own section and having it come first, as though the origin of the term is significant, or is as significant or more significant than the other material, is something to consider. Moving it to another part of the article took away any undue weight it had and placed it in a section it fits fine in. But, again, I can compromise and be okay with the material having its own section there at the top. I know that this source states that the term lesbian bed death is coined in American Couples, but I don't think that sources that state that Schwartz, or Schwartz and Blumstein, coined the term usually state that it was coined in the book. Maybe the ones that do don't mean literally. With regard to "coining a phrase doesn't necessitate first publicly uttering it," phrases are coined all the time in academia without being first publicly uttered. My point was that your sources don't state "coined"; so neither should we. I obviously agree with you not using "American Couples" for the coinage aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you cited WP:DUE previously. But even if I agreed with your interpretation, or thought there might be a consensus against this placement (despite all evidence to the contrary) the concern is that none of your changes seemed to improve either the accuracy or the weight of the claim. Something for you to consider as it looks like justification after the fact. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. The things I argued with regard to the rules are supported by the rules. It's already clear that you and I have interpreted the rules differently. This is not the first time, and it is unlikely to be the last. The only difference this time (well, besides one other time) is that it was just me and you and not others weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you cited WP:DUE previously. But even if I agreed with your interpretation, or thought there might be a consensus against this placement (despite all evidence to the contrary) the concern is that none of your changes seemed to improve either the accuracy or the weight of the claim. Something for you to consider as it looks like justification after the fact. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- WP:Due is the policy to look to when it comes to mentioning the origin of a term in the lead. An origin of a term is usually not mentioned in the lead of our Wikipedia articles unless the article is about the term (rather than the concept). This is because the origin of the term usually is not significant enough for a mention in the lead. In this case, it certainly is not significant enough. And mentioning it in the lead is even more questionable, given that who coined the term is dubious. But even when an article is about the term, we still commonly include the origin in an Etymology section lower in the article rather than in the lead. As for the rest, I obviously had more than one issue with the text. Giving it its own section is an issue for reasons stated above -- WP:Due and MOS:Paragraphs. A number of editors would agree. There is no need to create a section for a little bit of material when it can fit well in another section, especially when its dubious material. Like I stated above, WP:Due applies to placement of text as well. Giving this little bit of material its own section and having it come first, as though the origin of the term is significant, or is as significant or more significant than the other material, is something to consider. Moving it to another part of the article took away any undue weight it had and placed it in a section it fits fine in. But, again, I can compromise and be okay with the material having its own section there at the top. I know that this source states that the term lesbian bed death is coined in American Couples, but I don't think that sources that state that Schwartz, or Schwartz and Blumstein, coined the term usually state that it was coined in the book. Maybe the ones that do don't mean literally. With regard to "coining a phrase doesn't necessitate first publicly uttering it," phrases are coined all the time in academia without being first publicly uttered. My point was that your sources don't state "coined"; so neither should we. I obviously agree with you not using "American Couples" for the coinage aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's almost the same policy I quoted above, so I don't think we disagree there. The initial concern just seemed a little vague and mercurial. First it appeared to be an issue was with it being in the lead. There's no strong argument against mentioning the origin of a term in the lead. It's part of the 5 Ws, which is what basic fact means in this context,. This is easily attested to by general practice and plenty of other quality articles. Then the accuracy was disputed. There are a number of ways we can handle that: reword it, tag it, discuss it, even delete it. Moving it to another part of the article is about the only option that doesn't fix it. Finally, you mentioned due weight. As I said before, we can't reasonably balance one claim against another that doesn't exist in the article. The phrase "lesbian bed death" doesn't appear in American Couples, as some sources claim. I think you'd have to willfully ignore that in order to find a way that coining a phrase doesn't necessitate first publicly uttering it. But I'll grant you that the ambiguity is there. And even if the sources are wrong, of course there is a verifiable counter claim that Pepper Schwartz coined it, although I've chosen to drop "American Couples" from the text in the hopes that maybe she coined it elsewhere. Presumably in writing so as not to publicly utter it. Current wording works for me. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- With regard to "WP:DUE has no bearing on the accuracy of the claim," a claim can be dubious per different viewpoints. It's partly why WP:Verfiability states, "When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." In this case, you had worded the text so that it stated that Jade McLeughlin coined the term. Yes, you first used "may have been coined by," but then you used "was coined by" after I stated that "the content is based on 'might' and is dubious." I pointed to sources above showing that others state differently on that matter. Then again, your sources don't support that Jade McLeughlin coined the term anyway; so I reworded the text to state "believes that it was first publicly uttered by." As for adding the "Pepper Schwartz coined the term" aspect to the article, it was a suggestion that it be added if we are to keep the Jade McLeughlin piece. I see that you added it (followup edit here). To answer your edit summary question on that, yes, I can be fine with it, but I still believe that it's an unnecessary section and that the material would be better covered in the Society and culture section. It would also make it so that psychologist and sex therapist Suzanne Iasenza is still first mentioned at her most relevant spot -- the spot in the "Other findings and criticism" section. Readers sometimes forget names when reading or they sometimes skip to sections. So I think that Suzanne Iasenza being known in that section as a psychologist and sex therapist is best. But I'd rather not have us forgo mentioning her professions in the "Origin of the term" section and then first mention them in the "Other findings and criticism" section, or to mention them both times. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- And as for "none of your changes seemed to improve either the accuracy or the weight of the claim," considering that you originally added "coined by" and I changed that wording and validly challenged it, and considering that you originally added this material to the lead, that argument is false. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Lead changes
Regarding this, I objected to you mentioning Suzanne Iasenza in the lead because she is a non-notable or seemingly a non-notable and the text made it seem like she endorses the concept, even with the word "notorious" included. The material also wasn't covered lower in the article, which it should have been before being mentioned in the lead. Yes, we mention Philip Blumstein in the lead, but that's because he helped define this topic. He may also be WP:Notable; I haven't checked to see if he meets the general notability requirement or WP:ACADEMIC. And on that note, I haven't yet checked to see if Suzanne Iasenza does either. Anyway, as seen with this edit (followup edit here), I moved mention of Suzanne Iasenza out of the lead, but I kept the definition there, and I duplicated the content lower (but with the exact quote). Per WP:Weasel words, the lead can be vague on matters and doesn't have to mention who may define it that way. So I don't think a Template:By whom tag is valid for the "may also be defined as" portion of the lead. We shouldn't state "is" in this case, since it's not always defined that way and since it's a contested concept rather than a definitive state. I considered wording it as "A drop-off in sexual activity two years into a long-term lesbian relationship may also define the concept.", but the word "concept" is already used three times in the lead. I think "may also be defined as" is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine. It seemed like a super specific definition so I thought I'd attribute it, but I'm not married to mentioning her in the lead. Can't say that I agree that it sounds like she endorses it, though. I mean, regardless of how we feel about the subject, it is a concept that exists and which people believe in, so it warrants an objective definition. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- To me, the wording came across as something she endorses. Or I at least felt it could be read that way. So I considered it best that we don't imply that. If she did endorse it, that wouldn't have been one of my reasons for objecting. But she doesn't. I, of course, know that some people believe in lesbian bed death (including some lesbians themselves, as noted by the article). But the research on it today doesn't support it, at least as far as the drop-off in sexual activity being specific to lesbians goes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
"Bed death" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bed death and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 5#Bed death until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)