Talk:Knockout hypothesis

Wow, we need more info on this. BigMar992 04:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I created this article for the very reasons discussed below. I was unable to find anything online regarding the subject, but believe my source to be ‘veracious’ (David Barash is Professor of Psychology at the University of Washington and the author of two dozen books). I would have liked to incorporate this info into the ‘orgasm’ article under 4.2 – evolutionary advantages, but decided to try it out as a stub first. User:Rchoate
 * Maybe a better way to word it then is "The knockout hypothesis is a theory by David Barash...", the current sentence "aims at demystifying the female orgasm" is very evasive, and open to interpretation. It sounds like the hypothesis was made up for a purpose, which is not how scientific hypotheses are produced (i.e. based on observations, experiments, etc.). Iron C hris |  (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Notability?
I have serious doubts about the notability, even veracity, of this article. A google search gives 20 results (well, 8 without counting the ones related to Wikipedia), some of which have nothing to do with this (as they are concerned with plants). Please expand and find some very solid references, because this seems to me to be a rather questionable article. Iron C hris |  (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just checked and could find nothing to do with this among the 8 google results. Iron C hris |  (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ask the right guy
Why not just e-mailing barash and asking for references? dpbarash@u.washington.edu

Update from Mr. Barash, himself
"Actually, the hypothesis - which I personally think is pretty silly - was first suggested by Desmond Morris in his book The Naked Ape. It is more commonly known as the "Poleax Hypothesis" these days. It definitely is NOT mine: neither did I originate it nor do I believe that it is especially likely to be valid.  There have been many hypotheses suggested for the female orgasm, of which Morris's is just one - and, I suspect, one of the least convincing." User:Rchoate


 * In the light of this comment, I propose the deletion of this article. A hypothesis made up by a single author and which is unproven (and most likely never will be) shouldn't have its place in an encyclopedia. Otherwise we could get articles about all sorts of hypotheses, each one more bizarre than the next. The alternative, though, is to re-write the article, attributing it to the original author, and emphasizing the fact that it is unproven and very contested. I haven't read Barash's book; does he support the theory in his book, or does he oppose it? He seems rather opposed to it, but we can't include his update in the article, as per WP:V. Iron C hris |  (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete
I agree with a deletion. A whole paragraph in the article on orgasm already lists the most serious hypothesis, which don't have dedicated articles. If the Poleax hypothesis ever deserves to be mentioned, then it should be briefly mentioned there. Dragice 21:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Poleax Hypothesis deserves mention
Perhaps someone could make "knockout hypothesis" querries be redirected to the orgasm article where users would find info on the Poleax Hypothesis. Personally, the matter doesn't bother me, but that would seem to pacify others' requests. Rchoate 25 May 2006

Redirect
Redirect to the article on orgasm which now includes the knockout/poleax hypothesis. It seems to have some popularity, so it is worth mentioning its existence as well as its unlikeliness. Dragice 04:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)