Talk:SMV (old version)

Disagreements
Discussion of edits: The changes made by the user Mean as custard were reversed to include the Manosphere definition of SMV, which is prevalent throughout hundreds of heavily used websites on the internet. Please do not delete without instead fixing any issue and discussing justification for doing so. Ethicalv (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect that's bollocks. "Hundreds of heavily used websites on the internet"? Really? I take it you have a reliable source to back up a claim like that? Wikipedia is no place for fringe crap. But there is a website setup where you can fill your boots with the stuff - Wikia. It's the perfect place for stuff that's not fit to feature in an encylopaedia such as this. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

@user: Biker Biker There is no need for abusive language. I trust we'll be able to discuss civilly and work together to achieve a solution. The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered a reliable source by wikipedia. The SPLC's website is referred to as a source in quite a few instances like: List of organizations, Morris Dees, and Mark Potok. The SPLC identified the "manosphere" in a published report stating: "The so-called “manosphere” is peopled with hundreds of websites, blogs and forums". The websites of the manosphere are certainly authoritative for the use of terms within the manosphere. The argument that this is a "fringe" interpretation is irrelevant. I am not attempting to change the mainstream interpretation of any term but to document the usage of a term within the "manosphere". Using a website as a reliable source for the views of its owner is well accepted within wikipedia (see: Time Cube) for example.

I am reverting the changes. Please discuss before reverting again.


 * I'm not being uncivil. Calling something bollocks or crap is not a personal attack on you, rather it is an assertion on the worth of the top and its unsuitability for inclusion in an encyclopaedia - hence my suggestion to take it to Wikia where fringe bollocks and crap belongs. Having looked at your edit history you seem to be developing into a single purpose editor and that rarely ends well, with editors either getting disillusioned and leaving, or getting blocked after their behaviour spirals out of control. Take that as friendly, not uncivil, advice. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand your justification for using such aggressive and offensive language. But I hope you will understand that it is aggressive and offensive nonetheless. As for any suggestion of labeling me an single purpose editor, the topic of the manosphere is far too broad to ever justify such a label. I am simply a user with a focus area. Furthermore I hope you will consider whether it is responsible to even bring up such matters without having taken the time to address the arguments that I presented. I appreciate that you consider your persistent use of language and your words to be "friendly, not uncivil, advice" but in the context of your lack of analysis it is not only uncivil but unhelpful. I would certainly appreciate any genuine help you can offer however, if you are able to offer any. Ethicalv (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You really might want to read the policy on neologisms. WP:NEO "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." and even more importantly, and certainly worth considering, "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles."


 * It is also worth re-reading the single-purpose editor article, because it does seem to directly reference users with a focus area. I am sure you can also see the difference between the mainstream coverage that the Time Cube has received and a single one-off neologism used by the SPLC. Keep in mind that if you want to use the SPLC as a source, you probably can do so, but the rest of your article would also need to be supported by the same quality of sources - in other words, anything not directly referenced would almost surely be deleted as original research. Further, because the SPLC only mentions "Manosphere", it does not at all cover the term Sexual Market Value. I hope this helps. -Wieldthespade (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)