Talk:Mewing (orthotropics)

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 March 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mewing (orthotropics) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Body Modification (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Body Modification, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Body ModificationWikipedia:WikiProject Body ModificationTemplate:WikiProject Body ModificationBody Modification articles

Dentistry

	This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, 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.

Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 1102[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2024 and 17 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DiceyDomino (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Beefamus.

— Assignment last updated by Beefamus (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 April 2024[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was against redirecting. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewing (orthotropics) → Mewing (orthodontics) – Judging by our redirect from orthotropics, it seems that the current qualifier is a sub-class of orthodontics associated with (and potentially coined/created by) John Mew. I'm therefore proposing to change the parenthetical disambiguation from orthotropics to orthodontics so as to use a more generic class of disambiguator (per point 3 under WP:NCDAB), a likely more commonly known term, and a potentially more neutral qualifier than one strongly associated with one of this technique's creators. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 10:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Note: I no longer support this page move and am now neutral; see my comments below. [verify] 13:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Di (they-them), in case you want to take part in this discussion, as you previously moved the page to this title. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would not move it, since orthodontics is a real medical science whereas orthrotropics is a pseudoscience. Mewing isn't backed up by science, so it doesn't feel right to associate it with actual medicine IMO. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point - I hadn't thought of that. I won't remove the RM tag/close this right now in case any other editors have an opinion, but I'm a fair bit less in favour of moving the page than I was earlier. Thanks for bringing that up :) ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 17:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. RS do seem to describe orthotropics as being within the realm of orthodontics. I don't think using the (orthodontics) disambiguator necessarily implies that it is a legitimate or widely-accepted practice within the field. Colin M (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin M: When disambiguation in the title is needed, we do tend to label unscientific topics as illegitimate: Detoxification (alternative medicine), Bodywork (alternative medicine), Geobiology (pseudoscience) to name a few. ~~lol1 VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 08:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(original proposer) Switching to neutral. I think Di raises a good point above. However, I also think the orthotropics disambiguator is a bit problematic WP:RECOGNIZABILITY-wise (which was one of my reasons for originally proposing this move), as noted by Colin M. I'm finding myself wondering if there's an alternative parenthetical qualifier that can be used which is more recognizable, but doesn't have issues around potential implications of legitimacy. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per Di, though i'd support a a dab of 'pseudoscience' or 'quackery'—blindlynx 19:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Mewing is not a "subclass of orthodontics". It is the common name for the orthotropic system of beliefs (the Mews just use appliances to force tongue posture in clinical cases). Per NY Times: "In 2018, after years in obscurity, orthotropics (rebranded by incels as “mewing”) leapt into the mainstream, the subject of discussion on alternative-health forums and beauty". I'd support leaving it as is, or redirecting to 'Mewing' on its own. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This isn't recognised as genuine orthodontics and we should not do anything to imply that it is. It only exists within the Mews' own (at best) fringe field of "orthotropics". --DanielRigal (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not really orthodontics specifically. Arconning (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photograph[edit]

@Classicwiki can you explain why you reverted my edit? It seems like this article is in need of a photograph. Thank you. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1ctinus, yes, I was just about to leave a message on your talk page. You are the third person to try to add an image to Mewing within the last three days. Presumably the image is of yourself or someone you know?

I will ask the same questions, I asked the last editor. Could you explain who the subject of that photo was? Where it was sourced? I see "own work" on Commons. I am concerned about the consent issues surrounding a minor's image appearing on Wikipedia. The accompanying EXIF data makes me concerned for privacy rights as well. I am looking at wp:IUP>>Privacy Rights>>"Normally do require consent." Just a two days before your addition, another user (now blocked) uploaded a minor's image to that page as well (diff). Just yesterday, another editor added images of a minor, and they admitted had not received the consent of the legal guardian's to publish the image.

Considering its a popular trend, I also worry about someone uploading their own photo just for the meme-factor/bragging rights. The article has been frequently vandalised in the past couple months.

If the image is not of a minor, can you demonstrate that this is an encyclopedic image? Is this the is definitive way mewing is practiced and can you point to reliable sources saying that this image is an example of mewing?

If I can get some clarity on the image usage, I am not opposed to restoring. If you have any policies you can point me toward that clear the usage of the image that would be much appreciated. Thanks, --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a picture of a friend on my track team, I uploaded it with his consent and I forgot to remove the EXIF data on commons. I did not check the history to see so many people added the photo. I may remove the commons picture if I can’t get the exif data removed; I was bored during a track meet and wanted to act in good faith. -1ctinus📝🗨 03:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1ctinus, I do believe you on the good faith part.

Is this an image of minor? And if so, did the legal guardian give you permission to upload their image to both English Wiki and Commons (where it can be used on other Wikis)?

Is this the is definitive way mewing is practiced, and can you point to reliable sources saying that this image is an example of mewing?

Again if there is an image use policy that allows for such images to be used, please do point me in that direction. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classicwiki, where is the requirement that we "get permission for images of minors"? Wikimedia has rules related to inappropriate images of minors, which this is not. I think @1ctinus had an acceptable explanation. We don't need to know if this is the "definitive way mewing is practiced". The caption could just state "a young man signalling that he is mewing". Whether or not people are uploading images of themselves for bragging rights seems irrelevant to whether or not the image can be used. I agree with you that there concern is whether or not the image is actually owned by the uploader. If it cannot be found elsewhere on the internet, we can be relatively confident that is the case. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]