text:
Talk:Bone (comics)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vabro.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Reception
Why isn't there a critical reception or response section? You mention the Eisner awards but that's about it. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 05:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed! Just added a reception section and one review. It needs much more reviews though! Stextc (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A Note On Reception
Is it rude to ask who the hell is Michael Arner and why is the opinion of someone entirely irrelevant -culturally speaking, of course, I'm sure his mother cares about him- included in what is meant to be an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.248.99 (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Comic / Comics
I am going to bring this up on this talk page: why was the content on Bone (comic) manually moved to Bone (comics)? What difference does one "s" make? --DXI 00:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's back on Bone (comic) now.... Lee M 13:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I manually moved it back. I wanted to know why it was moved in the first place. --DXI 15:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The standard is "(comics)," as discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. This has been the precedent for ages, see e.g. Wolverine (comics), The Avengers (comics), Spawn (comics), Hercules (comics), 300 (comic book), etc. Sorry I didn't respond earlier; I didn't even see this conversation until now, after doing another manual move. -leigh (φθόγγος) 22:33, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, I wasn't sure. I just went with the page that originally had the better content. You live, you learn. --DXI 04:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bilbo Baggins
Interesting to see Fone Bone compared to Bilbo Baggins. I suspect that Smith didn't deliberately model Fone Bone on Bilbo, but rather cut him from the same cloth. In an earlier version of the article (cut for some reason) I described him as an everyman character. Like Bilbo he's a regular guy in a crazy world just trying to do his best. Lee M 13:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Compromise
''A compromise should be reached on a disputed paragraph in the notes section. Here is the paragraph as written by Phthoggos a couple of edits ago:  The Bone characters have been compared to those of Walt Kelly's Pogo, but they also have other literary precedents. Phoney Bone resembles Carl Barks' Scrooge McDuck, Fone Bone bears some similarities to J.R.R. Tolkien's Bilbo Baggins, and Smiley Bone resembles a less intelligent version of Groucho Marx.''

Here is the current version:

''The Bone characters have been compared to those of Walt Kelly's Pogo, but the resemblance is in appearance only. Phoney Bone's personality resembles Carl Barks' Scrooge McDuck, Fone Bone's personality bears some similarities to J.R.R. Tolkien's Bilbo Baggins, and Smiley Bone's personality is akin to something like a less intelligent version of Groucho Marx.''

I added in that their personalities were reminescent of the respective characters mentioned; I did so because I was concerned that outsiders might assume the resemblance was related to appearance. Phthoggos left me a message on my talk page, arguing that the Pogo comparison was more extensive than just appearance. I haven't really read much Pogo (it's difficult to find), so I obviously didn't identify any distinctive character similarities or otherwise. Here is a possible compromise nonetheless:

''The Bone characters have been compared to those of Walt Kelly's Pogo, both in appearance and in characterization. However, their respective personalities also have other precedents. Phoney Bone's personality resembles Carl Barks' Scrooge McDuck,...'' etc.

If anyone else has read more Pogo than I have, please feel free to comment and add any suggestions of your own. --DXI 01:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Can't say the visual resemblance leaps out at me. I haven't looked at Bone in a while, but if memory serves: Fone Bone can be compared to Pogo Possum himself, the honest and patient everyman; Phoney to Howland Owl, as the schemer whose schemes always go awry; Smiley perhaps to Churchy LaFemme or Albert Alligator?  —Tamfang 03:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I haven't seen Pogo in a while, but if my memory serves me right, Fone Bone does look/act like Pogo. But no one speaks "swamp talk"... Brutannica 01:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm familiar with Bone, Pogo, Barks and I find Bone is not solely reminiscent of Pogo. For instance, I could start making comparisons with Popeye. So the compromise was needed and is welcome.--Leocomix 16:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I find no references actually linking some of the comparisons. I found a comparison which states the Jeff used influences of Pogo but there has never been a mention of Bilbo, Aragon etc. Stextc (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Italic textpeople died while reading this book

Predecessor series -- why no info?
If I remembered the details, I'd write them up myself, but I don't. My recollection is that Bone began as a comic strip (maybe published in Smith's college newspaper), and that there's a very hard-to-find paperback collection (going for about $1000 when things were booming) called something like "Lantern Tales."

This would, I think, be important for the article even I'm even one-third right, so I hope somebody will track it down. N. Caligon 23:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * He goes into deatails about it in this interview

 * http://cagle.slate.msn.com/hogan/features/bone/home.asp --JRT 20:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Disney Adventures?
Does anyone else remember seeing this comic in Disney Adventures about ten years ago? I added a chunk about it, but more details would be greatly appreciated. --Gregoe86 20:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The article already included this information. Tverbeek 22:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Mea maxima culpa... I shouldn't go editing Wiki during finals and on very little sleep. Sorry 'bout that! --Gregoe86 05:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes...it happened, i happen to own most of them

71.206.175.221 00:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Kanohievi

Graphic Novel Articles Merge
First, I'm a noob so I do something wrong, don't kill me. Anyways, I've noticed that all of the articles for the actual 9 volumes are short and have either a merge or a needs cleanup tag, so I suggest that they're all merged into this one, most are only a sentence or so anyways. Highlandlord 10:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

On "Fone Bone"
Does anyone know why the character is named this? When I first read it I immediately thought of Girl 6, in which a character refers to phone sex as "phone bone". There's also a reference at this url: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=phone+bone

No reference was made in Bone, so I presume it was just a conincedence. Does anyone know for sure?

His name is a pun on "funny bone" which is a synonym for "sense of humor." It does not come from Don Martin's character from Mad as was erroneously stated. I remember an interview where jeff Smith was asked and stated that Don Martin's character has likely the same origin. --Leocomix 16:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Holy Crap! Now we are subject to the stupidity of urbandictionary's definitions for reference? Just because something reminds you as an individual of something else is not a reasonable need to post it here! For instance: Leocomix I immediately thought of Leoco Mix an nasty concoction of unnamed hard liquors and Countrytime Lemonade and Strawberry Jello, but does that mean I should subject the readers to this nonsense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.210.254 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Smiley not so innocent
I'm under the distinct impression, now reading through Bone, that Smiley acts stupid and inane on purpose to get people at each other's throats. This is made on the basis that Smiley seems to make either a remark roughly about how much he loves doing it, and the fact that his trademark grin turns into a smirk or some other much less friendly facial expression after doing so.

An example is when Lucius is hanging from the roof of Gran'ma Ben's house, Smiley let him fall by speaking non-sensically, and when he did fall, Smiley made a comment about how he could definitely get used to this place. Another is when Lucius, Smiley, and Phoney were walking in the rain after a rat creature attack, Smiley, through annoying them, got Lucius and Phoney to argue, ending up in Phoney agreeing to an obviously self-destructive bet. After which, Smiley smirked. Not only is a smirk supposedly out of character for him, it also seemed rather malicious.

Finally, the amount of knowledge he has about ticking others off, plus the fact that he has a VERY good grasp of things around him despite his "stupidity", makes me sincerely doubt he's as nice a guy as everyone believes. I think Lucius has it right. He DOES like torturing people. And Lucius is a VERY good judge of character, shown several times through the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.239.66 (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Editions
I came to the article trying to find info on the different types of editions For instance I have collections marked 7-12 and 13-18. While the first collection matches the second TPB, it doesn't match the third TPB. Can someone fil up the missing data or refer to a site containing the data? --Leocomix 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs A Spoiler Tag
This page needs a spoiler tag- I learned a very important plot element I wasn't interested in learning due to the disclusion of a spoiler tag. --65.12.134.148 13:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HoodedOne.jpg
Image:HoodedOne.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Done - for such a large and important article it is thin on references, most sourcing the awards. There are a number of citation requests and it could do with more dense referencing even if that may partly mean primary sources in the characters sections. I'd also imagine the reception could be longer. (Emperor (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

Bone: Tales of the Valley?
I highly doubt this is real. I mean, c'mon, Fone and Thorn's children? Who thought this up?

If it's not real, which I think, I'll remove it

85.146.98.166 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 * closest thing i could find is this -> http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:rvVzLWoq5gsJ:salamandertheatre.ca/productions/2009-10_Tales_from_the_Valley.pdf+BONE:+%22Tales+from+the+Valley%22&hl=en
 * am removing it - Krishvanth (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

New Bone projects...
Someone add this info to the article:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=22164

Thanks!24.190.34.219 (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

needs a bit of work
this article needs a bit of work... e.g. better arrangement of layout etc... - Krishvanth (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * i think i'll start up on it in a little while... expand the thing to multiple pages... its damn pitiful really, tat the entire series has been contained in jus one article... - Krishvanth (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually it needs a lot of work, but it appears everyone who tasks themselves with the job, has no idea what they are doing, violating rules left and right, the problem really is it should either be: Left alone or done correctly, not done half way and then abandoned, or deleted entirely... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.210.254 (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

images licensing info
''the use of low-resolution images of a single panel from a comic strip or an interior page of a comic book to illustrate the copyrighted character(s) or group(s) depicted on the excerpted panel in question where no free alternative exists or can be created on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.'' (quotin the licensing info) --Krishvanth (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC regulates this. We always use as little non-free content as possible. Rettetast (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Will simply have to look for alternatives now. Perhaps I'll use a non-free image and add a couple of edits making it a free to use one. I suppose that would be acceptable. Krishvanth (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. If you start with a non-free image and modify it, what you create is a derivative work. The rights holder of the original still retains rights. You can't make a non-free image free by making a few changes to it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Tale of Mim
The dragons joined together to fight Mim, and drove her into the earth, pushing the ground up around her. The dragons forced her tail into her mouth, becoming the infamous Crown of Horns.

Where in the series does it say that? If I remember correctly, the dragons turned Mim to stone and didn't drive her into the ground until the end of the series. Also, there is no mention to the Crown of Horns being Mim's tail, and how could that even be possible, since if that was the case, the Crown of Horns would go with Mim when she was freed, instead of staying in Tanen Gard.--Stephen C Wells (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

On The Movie
I am here to confirm that the movie is in CGI according to this link

Time top 10 Graphic Novels?
The article says that the single edition work was listed in the Time 10 best graphic novels list, but it is not included in the list given here: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1883296,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murraypaul (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But it is on the "Full List" here. That selection is strikingly different: only Watchmen is on both lists.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Bone (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101124234212/http://www.time.com/time/bestandworst/2004/comics.html to http://www.time.com/time/bestandworst/2004/comics.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081201004544/http://www.harpercollins.co.uk:80/SearchHome/Pages/default.aspx?searchkey=Jeff%20Smith to http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/SearchHome/Pages/default.aspx?searchkey=Jeff%20Smith

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 one external links on Bone (comics). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20080719113515/http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_1994win.html to http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_1994win.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101109204644/http://www.harveyawards.org:80/awards_2005win.html to http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_2005win.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101220190441/http://www.boneville.com/bone/bone-history/ to http://www.boneville.com/bone/bone-history/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315192336/http://media.www.thelantern.com:80/media/storage/paper333/news/2001/10/02/Arts/Comic.Man.Returns.To.Roots-109437.shtml to http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2001/10/02/Arts/Comic.Man.Returns.To.Roots-109437.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130712035553/http://www.boneville.com:80/jeffs-studio/about-jeff-smith/ to http://www.boneville.com/jeffs-studio/about-jeff-smith/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130625041155/http://www.boneville.com:80/bone/bone-history/ to http://www.boneville.com/bone/bone-history/#image
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608020121/http://herochat.com:80/forum/index.php?topic=170859.0 to http://herochat.com/forum/index.php?topic=170859.0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717051209/http://www.thisweeklive.com/2010/04/29/book-series-will-remain-in-schools-committee-says/ to http://www.thisweeklive.com/2010/04/29/book-series-will-remain-in-schools-committee-says/#more-22622
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101220190441/http://www.boneville.com/bone/bone-history/ to http://www.boneville.com/bone/bone-history/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Bone (comics). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20100716172409/http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_1995win.html to http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_1995win.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101109204512/http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_1996win.html to http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_1996win.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101109204522/http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_1997win.html to http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_1997win.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101109204544/http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_1999win.html to http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_1999win.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101109204554/http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_2000win.html to http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_2000win.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110010732/http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_2003win.html to http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_2003win.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_2005win.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520080545/http://www.comic-con.org/cci/cci_eisners05rcv.shtml to http://www.comic-con.org/cci/cci_eisners05rcv.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330191026/http://www.boneville.com/2011/03/02/first-look-massive-bone-20th-anniversary-color-one-volume-editions-were-planting-a-tree-for-every-one-we-sell/ to http://www.boneville.com/2011/03/02/first-look-massive-bone-20th-anniversary-color-one-volume-editions-were-planting-a-tree-for-every-one-we-sell/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://herochat.com/forum/index.php?topic=170859.0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509082641/http://www.boneville.com/2008/03/13/bone-to-warner-bros/ to http://www.boneville.com/2008/03/13/bone-to-warner-bros/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bone (comics). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20110523044746/http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/arts/stories/2008/05/04/1_JEFF_SMITH.ART_ART_05-04-08_E1_5DA27CU.html to http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/arts/stories/2008/05/04/1_JEFF_SMITH.ART_ART_05-04-08_E1_5DA27CU.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106051910/http://www.boneville.com/2009/07/24/new-bone-books-bone-tall-tales-quest-for-the-spark/ to http://www.boneville.com/2009/07/24/new-bone-books-bone-tall-tales-quest-for-the-spark/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Additions and Changes to the Article
The most important change that need to be made to the Bone (comics) article is the sources. Very little of the article is cited which makes it an unreliable reference. It will be my job to go through the article and find sources that support what the existing text says. I do not plan on doing this for the entire article, only the sections that I will already be making additions to. Some of the section contain far too much detail about the comics, which I have not myself read. I am more focused on making sure the background and critical reception sections are accurate and organized than I am on the actual plot and character details.

Another aspect of the article that I have edited it the reception section. Here I have added more information about challenges and oppositions to the comics, giving it a more balanced review.

I found the structure of some sections worth revising as well. Throughout the article, sentence structure appears to be an issue. There are many run-on sentences and the information is presented out of order and in a generally confusing way. There are also a lot of unexplained details within the article. I have restructured certain paragraphs that I believed needed work in order to avoid this confusion. Again, I have focused my efforts on the reception and publication history sections, as those are the ones I know more about.

Lastly, I feel as though it would be beneficial to rename some of the sections to better fit what wikipedia users expect when scanning an article. This is a minor detail but one that I think would make the article appear more streamline. The guidelines wikipedia recommends for an ideal article are not followed in this particular article, so I believe altering the titles would make the article seem more professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vabro (talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
This page appears to have suffered from some vandalism, don't currently have the time to make thorough changes to it but it's got issues SirBearington (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Bimonthly?
I changed bimomonthly to every other month because bimonthly can mean twice monthly or every other month. I made that change based on it having 55 issues irregularly over 13 years. Twice monthly would be 1320 issues while every other month would be 330 issues. Every other month is closer. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bone (comics)


text:
Amanda Foreman (actress)

Amanda Foreman is an American actress best known for her role as Meghan Rotundi on the college drama series Felicity (1998–2002).

Career
Foreman has worked on four series produced and/or created by J. J. Abrams. On Felicity, she played Felicity's college roommate, Meghan Rotundi, a Wiccan who – in "Help for the Lovelorn" (January 23, 2000), an homage to The Twilight Zone –  uses her magic on Felicity. She was a recurring guest star until 2006 on the spy drama Alias, where she played Carrie Bowman, an NSA agent and the wife of Marshall Flinkman (Kevin Weisman). Foreman later starred as Ivy on ABC's What About Brian, which was canceled in May 2007.

Foreman has guest starred on shows such as Nash Bridges, Six Feet Under, ER, and In Plain Sight. She also had a recurring role on Private Practice, which she reprised in Season 4.

Foreman had a recurring role on Parenthood as Suze Lessing.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Amanda Foreman (actress)


text:
User talk:D.C. Hughes

Welcome to the Wikipedia
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library

For more information click  here . You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Sam Spade 22:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adams Morgan image
Would you happen to have a true color version of Image:2005 fieldtest xxvi 0031.jpg? It's an interesting image, but an infrared picture doesn't seem appropriate as an illustration in that article. Postdlf 10:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:2005 fieldtest vii 0024.jpg
I am afraid the non-commercial licensing condition on the image Image:2005 fieldtest vii 0024.jpg is incompatible with the Wikipedia mission statement of being freely redistributable, so I have listed the image for deletion. Thue | talk 08:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to license the photo under the GFDL? dbenbenn | talk 14:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non-Commercial images listed for deletion
Image:2002 40 2A.jpg, Image:2003 156 2A.jpg, Image:2004 509 21.jpg, Image:2005 fatal1220fire 0011.jpg, Image:2005 field test xix 0057.jpg RedWolf 18:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) Image:2004 509 7.jpg is also noncommercial, and I'll list it soon if you don't want to relicense it. Night Gyr 12:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Also Image:2005 fieldtest xiii 0041.JPG, Image:2005 fieldtest xiii 0079.JPG, Image:2005 fieldtest xiii 0103.JPG, Image:2005 fieldtest xvii 0017.JPG, Image:2005 fieldtest xxvi 0026.jpg RedWolf 06:05, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Image:2005 fieldtest xxvi 0031.jpg, Image:Vigil number 50.jpg, Image:Vigil number 12.jpg, Image:Vigil at madams.jpg, Image:2001 56 33.jpg, Image:2001 56 28.jpg, Image:2005 fieldtest vii 0024.jpg, Image:2004 509 7.jpg listed for deletion. dbenbenn | talk 04:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:2002 40 6A.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:2002 40 6A.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Tom (talk - email) 04:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:D.C. Hughes


text:
Ferdi Sabit Soyer

Ferdi Sabit Soyer (born March 5, 1952) is a former Prime Minister of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and former Leader of Republican Turkish Party (CTP).

Soyer, a former union leader, has been a member of the TRNC parliament since 1985 (except for a three-year absence between 1990 and 1993). He was named successor to Talat's former post of TRNC Prime Minister on April 25, 2005.

Soyer was born in Nicosia in 1952, attending secondary school in Cyprus, then continued towards a degree in medicine from Turkey. However, due to political reasons he did not complete his university education. While there, Soyer co-founded the Youth Federation of Turkish Cypriot Students (KOGEF) and he was also its leader for a time.

Upon returning to Cyprus, Soyer continued to take an active part in various Turkish-Cypriot political movements. He worked as a member of Republican Turkish Party for a long time, recently holding the party office of secretary-general.

TRNC Cabinet offices that Soyer held was Minister of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Energy in the 1993 DP-CTP coalition government.

Soyer was elected as the new Chairman of the Republican Turkish Party on 21 May 2005, replacing President Talat who vacated his position after taking over the presidency.

Soyer is married with two children.

title: Ferdi Sabit Soyer


text:
Bibbo Bibbowski

Bo "Bibbo" Bibbowski is a fictional character appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics. He is typically shown as a good friend and supportive advocate of Superman.

Bibbo Bibbowski first appeared in The Adventures of Superman #428 (May 1987) and was created by Jerry Ordway and Marv Wolfman. He is based on Jerry Ordway's real life friend, Jo Jo Kaminski, described as a "hard as nails softie".

Fictional character biography
Bibbo first appears in a Suicide Slum bar called the Ace o' Clubs. When Superman comes in looking for information, Bibbo, thinking this is "some clown in a Superman suit", punches Superman, damaging his hand. He gains respect for the Man of Steel. He would later refer to Superman as his "fav'rit" hero.

During the Eradicator saga, Bibbo teams up with Lobo and Raof, a teleporter and a tribute to Marvel's Nightcrawler, to witness Lobo kill Superman. Lobo gives Bibbo a set of special goggles that will record the battle. All three, however, get drunk on Okarran liquor and thus suffer loss of all memory of the battle, which Superman won by a ruse engineered by the Eradicator artifact. Additionally, Bibbo wore the goggles backwards, and thus the entire recording was of his reactions. As a result, the aliens who retained Lobo to kill Superman have no proof that there even was a battle.

Bibbo becomes a more significant part of the comic when he finds a winning lottery ticket dropped by Gangbuster and uses the money to buy the Ace o' Clubs bar and to help those living in the slum.

Bibbo attempts to assist Superman when Superman becomes involved in a drawn-out fight against the murderous Doomsday. Bibbo works with Professor Hamilton on a plan to blast Doomsday with a large laser. They score a direct hit, but the monster is not affected.

When Doomsday and Superman ultimately kill each other, Bibbo is on the scene and helps Hamilton use a device to try to perform CPR on Superman, despite the risk of the device killing Bibbo himself. The plan fails and Bibbo is injured. Hamilton takes over the CPR but also fails.

Shortly afterward, Bibbo encounters a young man who, his family rendered homeless by Doomsday's rampage, is blatantly selling "Death of Superman" commemorative souvenirs during a public commemoration honoring the Man of Steel. At first outraged at the man's crassness, Bibbo feels some sympathy for his losses and buys his entire inventory to get him off the street, then offers him a job at the Ace O' Clubs. While Superman is gone, Bibbo takes to putting on a 'disguise' of sorts and helping out on the streets. Around this time he saves a man from suicide. This is mostly told through tall tales concerning various super-villains.

Bibbo briefly takes care of a small white dog named Krypto whom he had saved from drowning, not to be confused with the Kryptonian dog of the same name. The name was supposed to be "Krypton", but the engraver Bibbo hired to make a name tag made an intentional mistake, trying to extort more money from Bibbo (the price accorded was for six letters). Bibbo took the tag as it was.

A poster seen by the hero Aztek indicates that at one point, Bibbo fought the hero Wildcat during a charity boxing event. Later in the series, The Ace O' Clubs bar is the site of a battle between the life-force devouring Parasite and Aztek. Bibbo and his friends purposely ignore the fight, playing cards instead and trusting others to handle the villain.

In The Power of Shazam!, Ordway introduces Professor Bibbowski, Bibbo's pacifist scientist brother.

Bibbo reappears in Superman #679, shown as one of the champions of Metropolis that the villainous Atlas defeated. He is established by then as having worked in the Ace of Clubs, even bringing himself to boldly menace Atom Smasher for "talking trash about Sooperman".

Bibbo returns in 2016 Superman vol. 4 #4. He is seen arm-wrestling Hacken and easily beating him, before Superman's fight with Eradicator moves into his bar. Bibbo is shocked to see what appears to be Superman running away from the fight, but quickly realizes Superman is simply trying to lure Eradicator somewhere when there are no innocent bystanders.

Later Bibbo and his niece show up in Superwoman. When Ultrawoman takes over Metropolis, Bibbo is seen trying to start a fight with her minions but is saved by Natasha Irons and Traci 13.

Perry White recommends Clark and Lois take their son over to Bibbo's 'Ace O' Clubs' for burgers.

At one point, Superman saves Bibbo from being murdered by gun-wielding muggers.

Bibbo and his history with the Clubs bar is closely examined in Superman: House of Brainiac special. As Bibbo tries to help Perry White's run for mayor, he reminisces working at the bar since he was a kid. The bar had then, like it does now, milk on tap so kids, human and alien, would have something to drink. Bibbo also gets involved in related mayoral issues, namely that Perry's opponent is leading a violent racist campaign against aliens who have become citizens of Metropolis.

Other versions

 * Bibbo plays an important part in the alternate universe story Superman: The Dark Side. He watches out for Jimmy Olsen, keeps an eye on Lois Lane and fights against invading alien forces from Apokolips.
 * The pre-Zero Hour version of Bibbo becomes friends with Steel's niece and nephew in the Convergence storyline. Despite their robotic disguises, he recognizes them instantly.

Television

 * Bibbo Bibbowski appears in the Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman episode "Double Jeopardy", portrayed by Troy Evans.
 * Bibbo Bibbowski appears in Superman: The Animated Series, voiced by Brad Garrett. This version is an unemployed sea captain who frequents Hobb's Bay.
 * Bibbo Bibbowski appears in Young Justice, voiced by Miguel Ferrer.

Film

 * Bibbo Bibbowski appears in The Death and Return of Superman, portrayed by Dani Manning.
 * Bibbo Bibbowski appears in the DC Animated Movie Universe films The Death of Superman and Reign of the Supermen, voiced by Charles Halford.

Video games

 * Bibbo Bibbowski appears as a character summon in Scribblenauts Unmasked: A DC Comics Adventure.
 * Bibbo Bibbowski makes cameo appearances in the Metropolis stage in Injustice 2.

title: Bibbo Bibbowski


text:
Talk:Kinsey scale

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Keithh5678.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

sexual orientation confirmation
I'm slightly confused. I always believed the Kinsey Scale was a measure of sexual orientation. I looked on several websites and it said that the Kinsey Scale is a measure of sexual orientation. I'm not sure if this is correct so I did not want to edit the article, I was wondering if anyone could submit any feedback to me.--Mjp797 22:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the meaning. After reading as much as I can without being able to read the kinsey report itself, I'm convinced that "experience or response" includes "sexual orientation". If anyone changes this, please cite references! JohnFlux 23:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?
Kinsey's work is controversial, but there's still confusion about orientation/preference/experience/gender being used seemingly interchangeably. Can someone add/cleanup? Iamvered 17:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is article is very clear and adheres strongly to the NPOV policy. It explicity mentions the difference between history and orientation. If you have a problem with Kinsey's quote, then you're going to have to dig the man up and talk to him yourself. I vote to immediately remove the NPOV warning. The page may be a stub, but in my opinion it's a good start.—Kbolino 21:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with Kbolino's statement. Kinsey himself may be controversial, but Wikipedia doesn't avoid controversial or even bigoted people -- nor should it. This article is in need of some cleanup, but it's perfectly in compliance with NPOV. -Sean Hayford O'Leary 05:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Table
This is unrelated to the complaint above but still, does it bother anyone else that heterossexual ranks are in blue and homossexual ranks are in red? Some people might argue that I might be looking to deep into the neutrality of colored depictions and it is precious paranoia, but bear with me here, red is used in many signs with negative conotation. Star Ghost 20:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. Does anyone feel like changing the red to a colour with no connotation attatched?  Green, perhaps? Monkeyfinger 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Or just put it all in grey. Does this look bad?

 * {|class="wikitable"

!Rating !style="text-align: left"|Description
 * - style="background-color: #F0F0F0"
 * style="text-align: center"|0
 * Exclusively heterosexual
 * - style="background-color: #F0F0F0"
 * style="text-align: center"|1
 * Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
 * - style="background-color: #F0F0F0"
 * style="text-align: center"|2
 * Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
 * - style="background-color: #F0F0F0"
 * style="text-align: center"|3
 * Equally heterosexual and homosexual
 * - style="background-color: #F0F0F0"
 * style="text-align: center"|4
 * Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
 * - style="background-color: #F0F0F0"
 * style="text-align: center"|5
 * Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
 * - style="background-color: #F0F0F0"
 * style="text-align: center"|6
 * Exclusively homosexual
 * }

 * -- Steel 15:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, that green is better. -- Steel 15:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Nice job. Star Ghost 04:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave 0 and 6, 1 and 5, and 2 ve 4 the same colors. They represent the same thing in different orientations. And they still have their numbers, so there won't be any confusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.186.196.139 (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone feel that 0 has negative connotations and that some exclusively heterosexuals are going to feel alienated by this type of restrictive linear hierarchical rating system, that puts them into the void??? maybe instead of a '0' we could use a rainbow smiley face, and replace each number with a happy and all-inclusive icon, like lucky charms.  We could next erase the article, so as to not exclude those who can't read.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.83.154 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

lol @ unsigned! But I think the new colors are good. 67.124.148.55 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I am proud of being a zero! Color me zeroTomandzeke (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Table
Take a look at the table, I believe someone is playing silly buggers.

Yes, I noticed that too, have deleted the line in question ", --Wren-3talk 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Asexualism?
I noticed that asexualism isn't covered by the Kinsey scale. Perhaps it would be good if someone with more knowledge about Kinsey could explain in the article why it isn't covered and Kinsey's views on the subject. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why Kinsey doesn't cover asexuality, but there is another system, similar to his, that does, called the Storms Sexuality Axis. Oddly, I can't find a Wikipedia article on this, however.--Anonymous

I don't think asexualism should be seventh, this would mean that hetrosexual people always think about sex and homosexual people never think about sex, if anything it should be 3rd as this is an average Fwed66 19:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seek to imply that at the 'homosexual' end of the scale tends towards the asexual. It was given the non-numerary designator of 'X' so that persons would not construe that very thing! --Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.45.228 (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the X as part of scale for asexual and inserted reference to paper showing that Kinsey did NOT rate asexual as part of his rating. Having an X on this page or any number associated with asexual would be inaccurate. I have already begun to see people state they are an X on the Kinsey scale. This topic looks like one where people can come in and change things at whim so I am including the link for people to see that asexual was not part of the scale and this aspect of sexuality was not considered until the advent of the scale created by Michael Storm See  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbmaise (talk • contribs) 00:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed your addition and removed the words "bisexuality" and "asexuality" that were added by others, since Kinsey's scale did not even come close to using those. And as this source I added to the article shows, Kinsey didn't like using the word "bisexual" in his research. Anyway, what I came here to state is that it's wrong to say that Kinsey didn't include asexuality on the Kinsey scale. For one, it's sourced in the intro -- to Male volume, Table 141; Female volume, page 472. Secondly, the Asexuality section says: In the mid-twentieth century, Alfred Kinsey rated individuals from 0 to 6 according to their sexual orientation from heterosexual to homosexual, known as the Kinsey scale. He also included a category he called "X" for individuals with "no socio-sexual contacts or reactions". He labeled 1.5% of the adult male population as X. In Kinsey's second book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, he reported this breakdown of individuals who are X: unmarried females = 14–19%, married females = 1–3%, previously married females = 5–8%, unmarried males = 3–4%, married males = 0%, and previously married males = 1–2%.

 * And third, there are sources on Google Books and Google Scholar saying that Kinsey acknowledged asexuality on the Kinsey scale, like the source I noted that I added above.

 * P.S. The Michael Storm you were linking to above is an actor (mainly a soap opera actor), so I removed the link. 78.159.120.236 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of this article is marred by the language
I read the entire article and had no idea how the Kinsey scale was formulated, only that it measures hetero/homosexuality. There should be a section elaborating on the process of how these results are obtained, rather than just saying "11% of men are a 3." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.102.148 (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree. The Kinsey scale is so ingrained into modern culture, but this article is remarkably short. The process of determining sexuality based on this scale should be outlined. I also wonder if there are professionals who disagree with the scale's linear model, not unlike those who disagree with the Wechsler scale of determining IQ, in that things originating in the human mind are too complex to designate in one dimension. This goes along with the argument of asexuality, as pointed out somewhere on this page. I am in no way drawing a correlation between sexuality and IQ (there seems to have been a few easily confused people on this discussion page. Does the color of the numbers really matter?). Xaphon (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally?
What does that even mean? OrangeAipom (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * LIke, for example, somebody who usually likes only women, but may like men in certain cases. Zazaban2 (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cane the definition of 'incidentally' be placed onto the main article? --Havvy, November 4th, 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.170.63 (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 * (i have no particular idea here but an alternate meaning occurs to me) perhaps it means that there may have been some past incidents for various reasons but no more planned for the future, as in "apart from some events of an incidental nature". Anyway, I agree this aspect needs cleanup along with the rest of the article. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Kinsey scale measures "experience or response", so "incidentally homosexual" means occasionally having experienced or responded sexually to the same sex, the latter accounting for cases where someone can be sexually attracted to members of the same sex whilst having no to minimal sexual activity with them. --Xagg (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean "occasionally having experienced or responded sexually to the same sex"? For example, #1 on the Kinsey scale is "Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual." The word "incidentally" is definitely used to mean "occasionally." Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction, that's what I meant. Fixed above and in the article. --Xagg (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, idiot on board. *eyeroll* It finally sank in after I reread the article.

Excuse me for being a little stupid, but I (MissTeek, computer's having login problems already) need a little clarification on what "occasionally" homosexual means. To use myself as an example, would "occasionally" count for the fact that, even though I'd never enter into a sexual nor romantic relationship with another woman and identify as a 0 in that respect, lesbian erotica doesn't bother me and I can consume it without psychological repercussions (IOW, feeling like I must be bisexual and not known it)?

I guess what I'm asking is, does "occasionally hetero/homosexual" mean that there must be a direct physical or emotional encounter, or does it include purely psychological encounters (erotica, for instance) as well? If that's relevant to the article, I think it should be added. (If it helps answer my question any, I've been identifying as 1 because of what I just told you, although in a person-to-person context, it is absolutely 100% 0. Or maybe I'm a 0.5? ;D)

I hope that made sense. 98.71.131.126 (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Hello, MissTeek. I certainly don't feel that you were being an idiot. Some sources seem to suggest that Kinsey meant incidentally, as in occasionally, to mean "incidental physical sexual contact." And in that case, physical sexual contact obviously applies to his use of the terms exclusively and predominantly. But as can be seen from this article, such as in the Overview section, Kinsey states "experience or response." So he wasn't only going by physical sexual contact, but psychologically being sexually attracted to a sex as well. And, of course, people use the Kinsey scale for measuring both -- physical sexual contact and psychological sexual attraction. Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Colors
Now, we have Gay=>Yellow and Straight=>Blue and Bisexual=>Green. I cannot emphasise enough that all of these colors are positive colors.

 * 1st: Yellow is the color of wealth, of opulence, of luxury. It is also a color of the natural world, and it brings to mind long patches of flowers. It is a sweet color, and a calming color.

 * 2nd: Blue is the color of water. It is also a natural color. It is a relaxing one, a meditating one. It brings to mind the many blue based flags that countries have.

 * 3rd: Green is the color of grass and plant-life. You can't get any natural than that. It is also meditating. It has an intense symmetry to it, which the yellows and blues flowing into each other to give an endless ying and yang that cannot be unbound. It is also sweet, in a way.

Together, the natural colors symbolize the wonderful unity and intertwined feelings between all peoples of different orientations, since we are still all one human family.

Is this enough? Or are you all still going to be paranoid? The Squicks (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the colours you've used. It helps clarify the scale and does so in a neutral way. Jozal (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no matter what colors are picked as long as there is a difference between the colors it may be viewed in the negative. Further, Kinsey didn't have colors as part of his scale. Therefore, I have changed the colors to more pastel and made them all the same. There is one exception. The line * for Asexual has a different color to help make it clear that this sexuality was not considered by Kinsey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbmaise (talk • contribs) 00:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Kinsey Himself
I know that a "score" may not be constant, but where did Kinsey himself fall on the spectrum of his design? This would be interesting to add to the article. 98.221.137.91 (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Kinsey himself was a 3 and was bisexual but even if he'd been a 1, 2, 4, or 5 he still would have been bisexual. Either way this is old information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.70.85 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Early versions of Kinsey Scale different from modern ones?
It's my impression (and I could be mistaken) that the original Kinsey Scale that would've been used a half-century ago was significantly different from more recent versions, in that the old Kinsey Scale only reflected actual, real-life, "consummated" activity with another person of the same sex. In other words, there was NO attempt to quantify fantasies that had homosexual themes, let alone to measure something as abstract and intangible as "feelings of attraction."

So, by the original scale, if a man engaged in real-life mutual masturbation with another man in a hot tub (as described by noted sexologist Trey Parker on South Park), that counted as a homosexual act, and thus his Kinsey Number would go up a bit. However, if the same man engaged in solo masturbation while THINKING about how nice it would be to jerk off with another man, that "didn't count," and had no effect on his overall score!

Later versions of the Kinsey Scale used a significantly revised questionnaire that did attempt to take fantasy life and emotional attractions into account.

So, if someone with more expertise than I have can confirm all this, it should probably be added to the article that the Kinsey Scale methodology evolved over time, and thus if you see someone described as a "Kinsey 3" in a 1960 publication, it doesn't necessarily have the exact same significance as a "Kinsey 3" in a 2005 publication, because the ranking method and questionnaires have changed. Throbert McGee (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually Throbert they mean the same thing no matter what the decade or year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.70.85 (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

original research that wound up with a name
If I created the Kinsey Scale and put it into wikipedia, it would be called original research and deleted. That's what should have been done with the original too, it's obvious looking at it that it's just made up. It might have some statistical usefulness (see "rank order statistics" which I am not an expert on) but it would need the statistical analysis on a sample to show that, and in any case could be invented on the spot for the purpose of the statistics and it wouldn't need a name. The problem with it is that it's just a linear graph to represent an underlying process that there is every reason to believe is not linear. If there are enough underlying independent variables and processes involved we might expect the curve to be some form of a gamma function, but again, it's the actual statistics or actual underlying processes that are interesting, not this chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.76.5 (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to be completely rude, but did you actually read anything on this? Or did you just look at the pretty picture and decide that it couldn't possibly be real because you say so? The Kinsey Institute is real and so is this scale. Please do some research before making grandiose claims. TheNewKarl (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Which end of the scale is which?
I haven't done the research to determine the correct meaning of the scale, but, on the page, this bit suggests zero is completely gay:

In such studies, the person would be asked a question such as "If 0 is completely gay and 10 is completely hetero, what is your orientation number?"

whereas the "Table of the Scale" suggests zero is completely straight.

Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.167.146 (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted is an example of a similar study, where the numbers are defined in whatever way that specific researcher prefers. The sentence before the one quoted says:

There have been similar studies where the scale is from 0 to 10.

The rest of the page is specifically about the Kinsey Scale, based on the Kinsey Reports, in which 0 is "exclusively heterosexual." Elihenderson (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Kinsey Scale is Bogus
Whereas Kinsey scale is used to support a myriad of scientific or pseudo-scientific works there is not scientific work that give grounds to Kinsey out of Kinsey himself. First of all is not regarded the TRANSITIONAL aspect of the sex act. In sex one individual DELIVERS and another RECEIVES. This determines which individual is ACTIVE and which is PASSIVE. Men that may have received oral sex from passive homosexuals can't be thrown in the same category, nor one category away from travesties. How can a study assure that 1 out of 10 mature age males will have been ENTIRELY HOMOSEXUAL during 3 years of his life when 90% of males are married to females? It is the same to say that the remaining 10% had exclusively homosexual intercourse during three years time. Kinsey takes a mere Home Office demographic statistic, dresses it up with his more POLITICAL THAN SCIENTIFIC VIEWS, and applies it back to the whole society. It is clear that Kinsey's statistics are bogus, these were ONCE used to enhance the myth of men who don't marry or who marry late as of abnormal sexuality. It is used TODAY to support the OBNOXIOUS AND FALSE PROMOTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.191.20.220 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Keep your personal opinions to yourself. Use research, not bigotry to support your claims otherwise they will be ignored.

chart and fractions
Can anyone confirm that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kinsey_Scale.svg is actually an accurate reproduction of a chart in the book? The labeling of this chart, which seems to be some mashup of a bar and a line chart, is very vague on non-integer ratings. If the book has a better chart, we should update this. If it doesn't, I'm not sure the appropriate course of action. Sparr (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Several citations use other wikipedia articles as source
As of this writing, citations 7 - 10 are citing other wikipedia articles as a source. Is this practice acceptable on Wikipedia? I've personally never seen it done before, and can't imagine it's encouraged, if not forbidden entirely. — B1naryatr0phy (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

 * , those references are not citing other Wikipedia articles as sources; they are citing Kinsey and simply linking to the Wikipedia articles about the books. References often include WP:Wikilinks, whether it's to the author's name and/or to the publication that the reference is talking about or was published in, or something else. But, yes, per WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources, using Wikipedia as a source is not appropriate. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kinsey scale. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20131203001438/http://www.siue.edu/~cbwilso/203misc4.jpg to http://www.siue.edu/~cbwilso/203misc4.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kinsey scale. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120715130712/http://www.uwlax.edu/PrideCenter/images/101/Eval%20of%20Models%20of%20Sexual%20Orientation.pdf to http://www.uwlax.edu/pridecenter/images/101/Eval%20of%20Models%20of%20Sexual%20Orientation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Bias in reported findings
The "Kinsey reports" section is poorly written. For the men it only covers 11.6% of "white males 20-35" and 10% of "American males". For the woman there is slightly more written but still only accounting to 26% of all surveyed.

Furthermore, this "Kinsey reports" is filed under "Findings", which makes the entry incomplete at best.

What is one supposed to take away from reading this section? What are the findings here if you only talk about 11.6% of white males aged 20-35? (for example)?

I suggest this entire "Findings" section is axed or rewritten to present the findings in a way that covers all of the surveyed people.

Aethalides (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Kinsey Scale.svg

Kinsey scale
I'd like to know how to better understand the scale and the data or information that were gathered to prove that the information is factual and not fake Ackeria Smith (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Counting?
The article says at least twice (as of this date) that there are seven categories. There are 8, because of the "X" that the article also describes. The inconsistency is jarring, at least to this reader. IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Surveys and other studies
| Participants completed the Kinsey scale and then were asked to respond to the following question: "In what ways did this scale capture or fail to capture your sexuality?

This is a strongly leading question. It is inciting confirmation bias. Odd for a scientific survey. Wouldn't a neutral wording be: "Does this scale capture your sexuality? Are there things you would like to add?" 2001:A61:12AB:1C01:3CB2:1811:EF64:4693 (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kinsey scale


text:
User talk:Xosé

Welcome to the Wikipedia
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library

For more information click  here . You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Sam Spade 22:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Galician literature
Please, have a look at the discussion at the article talk page Galician literature. Cheers!--Garcilaso (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I have made the changes. Cheers!--Garcilaso (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited David Claerbout, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CGAC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Maria Olbrich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Langen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Shkreli Awards
Hello, Xosé. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Shkreli Awards, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shkreli Awards (January 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rusalkii was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shkreli Awards and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Shkreli Awards, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Shkreli_Awards Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rusalkii&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Shkreli_Awards reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rusalkii (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shkreli Awards (January 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tol was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shkreli Awards and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Shkreli Awards, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Shkreli_Awards Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tol&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Shkreli_Awards reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shkreli Awards (April 4)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shkreli Awards and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Shkreli Awards, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Shkreli_Awards Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CNMall41&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Shkreli_Awards reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Shkreli Awards

Hello, Xosé. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Shkreli Awards".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of .tn3

A tag has been placed on .tn3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://fileinfo.com/extension/tn3. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Deauthorized. (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Xosé


text:
User:Nick Warino

Hello.

title: User:Nick Warino


text:
Phreatic

Phreatic is a term used in hydrology to refer to aquifers, in speleology to refer to cave passages, and in volcanology to refer to a type of volcanic eruption.

Hydrology
The term phreatic (the word originates from the Greek phrear, phreat- meaning "well" or "spring") is used in hydrology and the earth sciences to refer to matters relating to ground water (an aquifer) below the water table. The term 'phreatic surface' indicates the location where the pore water pressure is under atmospheric conditions (i.e. the pressure head is zero). This surface normally coincides with the water table. The slope of the phreatic surface is assumed to indicate the direction of ground water movement in an unconfined aquifer.

The phreatic zone, below the phreatic surface where rock and soil is saturated with water, is the counterpart of the vadose zone, or unsaturated zone, above. Unconfined aquifers are also referred to as phreatic aquifers because their upper boundary is provided by the phreatic surface.

Speleology
In speleogenesis, a division of speleology, 'phreatic action' forms cave passages by dissolving the limestone in all directions, as opposed to 'vadose action', whereby a stream running in a cave passage erodes a trench in the floor. It occurs when the passage is full of water, and therefore normally only when it is below the water table, and only if the water is not saturated with calcium carbonate or calcium magnesium carbonate. A cave passage formed in this way is characteristically circular or oval in cross-section as limestone is dissolved on all surfaces.

Many cave passages are formed by a combination of phreatic followed by vadose action. Such passages form a keyhole cross section: a round-shaped section at the top and a rectangular trench at the bottom.

Volcanology
A phreatic eruption or steam-blast eruption occurs when magma heats ground or surface water.

Biology
Animals living within the phreatic zone of groundwater aquifers can be referred to as phreatobites. They are usually isopod or amphipod crustaceans such as species of Stygobromus, though there is also a genus of snails (Phreatodrobia) and Phreatobius are a genus of catfish living within flooded leaf litter. Alternative descriptions for such animals include stygobite, troglobite or Interstitial animals, as they live in water between the particles of the flooded substrate. They usually exhibit troglomorphism, with a loss of colour and eyesight, like the familiar blind cavefish which may also be referred to as 'phreatic fish'.

Such animals can often be found in wells, where human pursuit of water has dug down into their habitat.

title: Phreatic


text:
Category:Buildings and structures in Gloucestershire

Buildings and structures in Gloucestershire, England.


text:
Sé (Funchal)

Sé (Portuguese for "Episcopal see") is a civil parish in the municipality of Funchal, on the island of Madeira, Portugal. It includes the historical centre of Funchal. The population in 2011 was 2,656, in an area of 3.82 km². Its administrative authority includes the distant, uninhabited Savage Islands, with an area of 2.73 km².

title: Sé (Funchal)


text:
South Africa at the 1992 Summer Olympics

South Africa competed at the Summer Olympic Games for the first time since 1960 at the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain. South Africa was permitted to re-join the Olympic Movement after its citizens voted to abolish apartheid. 93 competitors, 68 men and 25 women, took part in 87 events in 19 sports.

Flag, anthem and team logo
As a result of a dispute over what flag and anthem to use, the team participated in these games under a specially designed sporting flag. The flag consisted of a white field charged with a grey diamond, which represented the country's mineral wealth, three cascading bands of blue, orange, and green, which represented the sea, the land, and agriculture respectively, and the Olympic rings. Team uniforms included the emblem of Olympic Committee of South Africa, which depicted Olympic rings surrounded by olive branches, with the name of the country above. The Olympic Committee of South Africa stated that Ludwig van Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" was picked as the team's anthem instead of the national anthem at the time, "Die Stem van Suid-Afrika", at these games to "represent national unity". During the opening ceremony, the flag was carried by marathon runner Jan Tau.

Competitors
The following is the list of number of competitors in the Games.

Archery
In South Africa's debut appearance in Olympic archery, the nation was represented by two archers. Neither advanced past the ranking round.

 * Men

 * Women

Athletics

 * Men
 * Track & road events

 * Women
 * Track & road events

 * Field events

Boxing

 * Men

Sprint

 * Men

 * Women

Cycling
Five cyclists, four men and one woman, represented South Africa in 1992.

Road

 * Men

 * Women

Track

 * Time trial

 * Men's Sprint

 * Pursuit

Diving

 * Men

Fencing
Five fencers, three men and two women, represented South Africa in 1992.

 * Men

Individual

 * Women

Modern pentathlon
One male pentathlete represented South Africa in 1992.

Rowing

 * Men

Sailing

 * Men

 * Open

Shooting

 * Men

 * Open

Swimming

 * Men

 * Women

Synchronized swimming
Two synchronized swimmers represented South Africa in 1992.

Table tennis

 * Men

 * Women

Tennis

 * Men

 * Women

Weightlifting

 * Men

Wrestling

 * Men's freestyle


text:
Talk:Sexual addiction

Addicted to men
This seems like an absurd title for a redirect to this article. Does anyone know if this refers to something in particular? If not, I'm going to WP:RfD it.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 10:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a very silly redirect; it was a single link from the article Nurse 3D, which I have now removed from the article. Yes, please RfD it. -- The Anome (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Listed at WP:RfD.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 11:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Move of the article
The Anome, regarding this and this, Mayo Clinic and mdedge.com are not ideal sources to use for medical topics; see the the archived discussions on Mayo Clinic at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), including Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 10. Furthermore, "sexual addiction" is the WP:Common name for this topic. If we are going with a medical name per WP:NCMED, it's still the case that, per this 2017 "Routledge International Handbook of Sexual Addiction" source and sources like it, "sexual addiction" is the most common name and that the concept is not defined consistently in the literature. I've requested that your move be undone. I will alert WP:Med to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Try these: -- The Anome (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 * We don't seem to have an article about Compulsive sexual behavior disorder, which is an ICD-11 diagnostic code. A quick look at some search results suggests that there isn't a one-to-one correlation with sexual addiction, partly because "sex addiction" seems to be a code phrase for "I got caught cheating (or raping, or spending more time looking at porn than my mother approves of), and I don't want to take responsibility for my actions".
 * Like basically every ICD-listed diagnosis, CSBD is notable. Do you all think that it'd be better to handle CSBD separately, or as part of this larger subject?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 * As part of this larger subject. What I find remarkable is that the greater part of this article is about how "sex addiction" does not actually exist as an official clinical entity in any of the major diagnostic systems. The concept of sex addiction seems to me to be at once the product of moral panic and social conservatism that allows the thinking behind the War On Drugs to be expanded to the sexual sphere, providing yet another way to disparage un-approved-of sexual activity, and, as you say, an all-purpose excuse for sexual misbehavior that can be used to medicalize away responsibility. It's also created a whole specialist industry devoted to diagnosing and treating sex addiction. The only problem I can see with using the ICD-11 concept is that the ICD-11 is still being revised, and has not yet come into effect, but at least the CSBD definition actually exists. The neurochemical models being applied to behavior reinforcement and compulsivity are interesting, and they seem make a lot of sense here once you stop using the word "addiction". I would imagine that this reasoning was probably behind the ICD-11 decision to use the concept of compulsivity rather than addiction. -- The Anome (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 * The Anome, those references don't change what the common name is. They also don't establish that "compulsive sexual behavior" is the most common clinical name for the topic.

 * As for "compulsive sexual behavior disorder," per WP:No page, I think it should definitely be regulated to this article for now. Like the Routledge source I cited above notes, there are a number of different terms for this topic and the concept isn't cleanly defined. Hypersexuality is currently its own Wikipedia article, but it is commonly seen as just another term/concept for sexual addiction (as noted by the aforementioned Routledge source).

 * As for the validity of sexual addiction and whether or not it is harmful, there are a lot of people who report it as having reduced their quality of life. This is related to pornography addiction, although obviously sex addiction is broader than that. Although sex addiction has conceptual issues and isn't an official diagnosis (if excluding the ICD-11 diagnostic code), many or most researchers who study it clearly believe it exists. It's just a matter of naming it and what criteria to use for it. Researchers know that humans can develop compulsive behaviors regarding a number of things, including video games. The human brain is like that. Some people may use their condition as an excuse, but it's more so a reality than an excuse. Compulsive behavior can be harmful, although not always. As for rape, WhatamIdoing... I haven't seen any researcher try to justify rape by stating "he has a sexual addiction." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that respectable researchers say that sexual addiction is a justification for rape, or anything else. I said that the self-identified sex addicts (and their publicists and their lawyers) say that, and things like that.  This is presumably why this page is linked to in so many BLPs.
 * On the general question, right now, it appears that any psychologist, not to mention any author who wants to make a fast buck, is free to make up his own mind about what constitutes "sex addiction", without regard to whether it's properly an addiction or anything else. So there appears to be quite a diversity of definitions, some of which have defined nearly half of adult men as "sex addicts".  The ICD's notion of CSBD is probably at the other end of that continuum, with only about 1% of adults qualifying for a diagnosis.  It isn't widely in current use, but ICD-11 was "released" last year and is supposed to be officially "endorsed" by WHO next month (each country decides when/whether to use it), so I think we'll see a lot more use of that language soon.
 * The question I'd like to ask, though, isn't really about the title. It's about whether we want to have one article about whatever sexual behavior somebody claimed was due to "addiction", and a different one about the scientifically researched subject of an impulsive behavior disorder, or whether we want to make the formal scientific subject be just one section in this article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, I know that you didn't "say that respectable researchers say that sexual addiction is a justification for rape, or anything else." I just wanted to point out that I haven't seen any researchers arguing that. And if there are some that do, they are WP:Fringe. I also have not seen any sex addicts or their lawyers argue that, but maybe you saw something in the news that I didn't.

 * I don't know about "some of which have defined nearly half of adult men as 'sex addicts'." But it's certainly true that many men have high libidos, and typically have higher libidos than women. A high libido doesn't automatically mean "sex addict." So I see what you mean.

 * As for multiple articles, I still feel the way that I felt above. In other words, I'm going with WP:No page in this case. Having both this article and the Hypersexuality article is enough, at least for now. And there has been talk of merging the Hypersexuality article into this article. If done, of course unnecessary redundancy should be removed. The only reasons I've been hesitant to support merging these two articles is because of how hypersexuality has been notable in its own right (especially historically) and a source might use the term "hypersexuality" without meaning "sexual addiction." The Hypersexuality article is also currently being used in the "article about whatever sexual behavior somebody claimed was due to 'addiction'" way that you mentioned. See James Cantor's comment in the discussion about merging. He stated, "Because 'hypersexuality' is the most neutral of terms in wide-spread use, I believe it's the best place for an overview, with links to other pages where more detail is needed. That is, I'd return to the page the basic descriptions of the sex addiction model (and compulsion model, etc.) of hypersexuality and refer readers to the sex addiction articles (etc.) in the appropriate section headers." As noted in that discussion, we also have the Hypersexual disorder article, and more discussion took place at WP:Med. Having both a Hypersexuality article and a Hypersexual disorder article is similar to the suggestion of having both a Sexual addiction article and Compulsive sexual behavior disorder article, and it's too much. Best to consolidate this material, like the Hypersexuality article currently does. That stated, Cantor might think that using the "Compulsive sexual behavior" title is best for this article and that "Compulsive sexual behavior disorder" should be its own article linked within that one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the DSM-related proposals for sex addiction gave ≥1 orgasm per day as a standard, until someone figured out that this meant 40% of adult men (probably "otherwise healthy adult men in some suitable age range", etc., but still: nearly half in a category that has more than a billion people in it).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For a similar example (regarding sexual addiction and compulsive sexual behavior disorder), the Gaming disorder article was recently merged into the Video game addiction article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This article was a very interesting read. Frankly, I’ve had some pretty major qualms with the DSM-5 and ICD-11 diagnostic categories for drug addictions for a while; but, the focus of each diagnostic manual would seem to explain why the diagnostic criteria are a bit borked/conflated with drug dependence. In any event, that article mentions things about the diagnostic classification of compulsive sexual behavior that should be mentioned in this article; e.g., the ICD-11 working group recommending its inclusion in impulse control disorders, which is a diagnostic category composed of a weird amalgamation of behavioral addictions and others disorders unrelated to addiction.

It mentions other things about compulsive sexual behavior that might be worthwhile to cover as well, but the part about the ICD-11 recommendation is the most notable IMO. I don’t really like writing about the diagnosis of addiction for the aforementioned reason, so if someone else is willing to add that, I’d appreciate it. If not, I’ll probably begrudgingly do it at some point.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 00:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

In any event, including a criterion for the frequency of behaviors does not represent a divergent approach to diagnosing behavioral addictions because it's analogous to criterion 1 in the diagnosis of SUDs.
 * @WAID: that DSM proposal involving ≥1 orgasm/day as a criterion for sex addiction is a case in point as to why the DSM-5’s approach to the diagnosis of addiction is stupid: the relative frequency of a behavior isn’t diagnostic for addiction. While it’s certainly true that addicts tend to excessively perform behaviors which mediate their addiction (e.g., use an addictive drug), this is not what distinguishes an addict from a non-addict (it'd probably be accurate to describe it as a non-specific behavioral symptom of addiction); e.g., addicts and non-addicts with low genetic loadings for addiction can perform behaviors that mediate an addiction at the same frequency. Moreover, “excessive behavior” in a drug context is equivalent to “overuse” of an addictive drug, but that’s an ill-defined and basically meaningless concept except in the case of prescription drugs, since the “baseline use” (against which “overuse” would be defined and measured) would be the prescribed daily dose. Hence, that proposal represents a divergent approach to diagnosing behavioral addictions.  Nevermind, after looking at Substance use disorder (NB: ignore criteria 10 and 11 since those pertain exclusively to dependence), the DSM-5 invented a rather derp way to measure overuse with criterion 1. I call that derp because a person may plan to use all of drug in their possession whenever they obtain it and desire to continue their drug use indefinitely.
 * That said, the defining features of any addiction are an intense desire/wanting which is directed toward a stimulus (amplified incentive salience attribution) and an inability to stop oneself prior to or while in the process of exposing oneself to that stimulus (impaired inhibitory control). Consequently, if the questions “Do you experience strong or intense wanting or craving for X?” and “Can you stop yourself from engaging in obtaining X once you start and do something else?” (or something equivalent to these) are not considered in a proposed addiction diagnosis (or an established one in the DSM, ICD, etc. for that matter), then said diagnosis is not actually diagnostic of an addiction. Why? The first question asks in plain English whether or not the behavior in question is rewarding and the associated reward has been sensitized (re: amplified incentive salience). The second question asks in plain English whether or not the behavior is compulsive.  Together, they ask whether or not a person is compulsively engaging in a rewarding stimulus: the defining characteristic of addiction. I really don’t see why it’s so hard to develop a set of diagnostic criteria centered around those two features; but, I have little to no interest in nosology, so meh.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 00:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 * One reason I can think of is that when you ask such questions, you give the message that the patient is in control of his/her own diagnosis, not the psychiatrist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't really see the difference between that and a doctor asking a patient if they're experiencing chest pain if they suspect a heart attack or if they occasionally experience headaches at the back of their head if they have high blood pressure. A doctor can't observe pain in a patient just like a psychiatrist can't observe an abnormal cognitive process in a patient. I realize that in both cases, these might be inferred through specific behaviors; but, doctors typically don't check to see if a patient is wincing, grimacing, grabbing their chest, etc. as a proxy for just asking the question. What makes psychiatry different?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 01:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, psychiatrists have to question their patients, but they never imply that they take the self-diagnosis of the patient at face value. The questions you suggested boil down to "Do you give yourself the diagnosis of addiction?" Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming that a patient correctly identifies that those questions pertain to how an addiction is characterized and knows which responses (i.e., yes/no) would be consistent with that characterization, I'd agree with you. That said, mental health disorders are definitely screened for by asking patients questions.  E.g., I recently switched my PCP and was asked a battery of questions pertaining to major depressive disorder. If, for whatever reason, I wanted to game the questionnaire and walk out of my doctor's office with an SSRI prescription, I could've done so fairly easily.
 * In the diagnosis of an SUD, a clinician asks a patient questions pertaining to those 11 diagnostic criteria. If you read through each of them, you'd notice that criteria 2 and 4 reflect my second and first questions above, respectively. Therefore, I don't think that the DSM-5's SUD diagnosis is woefully borked, but it does conflate 2 disorders by grouping criteria 2 and 4 with criteria 10 and 11 under a single diagnosis.
 * In any event, I don't really see where you're going with this since what I said really has nothing to do with a self-diagnosis. Even if it did, one could just as easily self-diagnose an addiction from the 2 defining features I mentioned as from the set of 11 (again, technically 9, since 2 reflect a distinct disorder) SUD diagnostic criteria.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Pinging WhatamIdoing since Seppi replied to her. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Confusion in the Section on ICD
Hello, the sub-section referring to ICD in the part talking about "classification" is confusing as it refers to both ICD-10 and ICD-11 as "The most recent version of that document". These statements can not both be true can they? It may be worth clarifying what is meant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwatts2 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Changed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

In the news
"“Historically the term ‘sex addiction’ has been used by white males to absolve themselves from personal and legal responsibility for their behaviors,” one expert said. “It is often used as an excuse to pathologize misogyny.”"

- NBC News

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Apryl Alexander, an associate professor at the University of Denver, provides no primary source information, therefore it cannot be verified, that's not what WP:VER means. We do not have to second guess associate professors. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 * I wasn't referring to WP:VER. I was referring to the fact that it's a bad source. You can't just write whatever you want, and then pat yourself on the back because it appears in a (bad) secondary source somewhere. The source shows clear bias, and my point was that the source doesn't provide any primary sources to demonstrate that it's correct despite the appearance of bias. In the absence of any information from sources biased in other directions, the reader isn't being provided a balanced and neutral POV, and so it wouldn't serve their interests to leave the article as-is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotpine (talk • contribs)

 * Right, we are not "unbiased", but we have a WP:GOODBIAS. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks for spamming my talk page, I guess. According to the "yes, we are biased" content you posted there, sources should essentially be scientific. One biased scientist talking out of their butt, and being quoted in a biased article, is not a reputable scientific source. If you can find a scientific journal dumb enough to publish their words verbatim, then great, we can quote and cite that instead. Until then, this is biased, pure and simple, and not in the WP:GOODBIAS way. It's just as bad as homeopathy and the other pseudosciences listed there. Hotpine (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

What are negative effects of sexual addiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seriousnes (talk • contribs) 22:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 * We don't know if sexual addiction even exists. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Donald Hilton
Can we include dr Hilton here Jm33746 (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 * AFAIK he is a neurosurgeon. His area of expertise does not include sexual "addiction". You are gently reminded to obey WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And Hilton is an anti-pornography activist, i.e. he wants to ban all pornography, even when consumed with moderation. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sexual addiction


text:
Walter Crickmer

Walter Raymond Crickmer (17 December 1899 – 6 February 1958) was an English football club secretary and manager.

He became Manchester United club secretary in 1926. He twice assumed managerial responsibility: from 1 April 1931 to 1 June 1932, and then again from 1 August 1937 to 1 February 1945.

Together with club owner James W. Gibson, he was responsible for instituting the youth development system at Manchester United. After 32 years of service as club secretary, Crickmer was killed in the Munich air disaster on 6 February 1958. He is buried at Stretford Cemetery.

He was married to Nellie Robertson from 1921 until his death. She outlived him by nine years, dying in 1967. They had one daughter, Beryl, who was born in 1921.

title: Walter Crickmer