Talk:Wife acceptance factor

Never heard of this before. Also, remember Wikipedias policy when it comes to original research Mvikjord (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's pretty common. Was very delighted to see it on Wikipedia (and that it's 1st result in Google search). IonutBizau (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

SAF????
Is this "politically correct" version ("SAF") necessary to be noted? As far as I know, nobody on earth uses this term, it looks like someone just put it here to blatantly promote political correctness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.115.100 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I COMPLETELY AGREE. There is NO need at ALL to be politically correct. It's called a WIFE ACCEPTANCE FACTOR for a reason. Could Binksternetstop re-editing the original article as there is no genuine contribution you are making, rather your edits are detrimental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The source for that bit is not free any more unless the reader (unlike myself) subscribes to boston.com, but when I looked at it last year, it was free. After a year of not looking, I remember it said that "Woman" is sometimes changed for "Wife", and "Approval" for "Acceptance". It also said that "Spouse" has sometimes been used instead of "Wife" in cases such as homosexual partnerships, or heterosexual role reversals where the man dislikes the woman's extravagant addition to shared space in the home.
 * Your argument against listing these variations falls flat—it has no foundation in fact. You say there is a reason but you do not supply it. It would be interesting to know what that reason is, but such a reason would not nullify the fact that Wikipedia articles are free to list notable variations where relevant. These terms are likely to be the ones that a reader types into a search engine, and the varied terms all redirect to this page: Woman Approval Factor and Spouse Acceptance Factor, for instance, come right back here. Deleting them from the article makes no sense at all when that kind of navigation is taken into consideration. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"You are both right to some extent. The term now can stand for Wife/women approval/acceptance factor. The source mentions nothing about spouses. Finally, as a neutral, you are overstepped the mark and it's coming across a bit too PC. I'd recommend you restore the users rights on Wikipedia. As a senior contributor you should know better."

Sadly he will keep vandalising this page to be politically correct. I do not wish to fight the person but this SAF thing is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He has just disabled my editing rights so I will screenshot this and notify the higher ups to get my account reinstated, and to get his account penalised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! You are not blocked from editing or you could not have written the above entry. You pretend to quote somebody and then you answer the quote, but both bits are written by yourself. The posture you have taken is wrong—you are acting wounded but you have not had your editing rights disabled in any way. I suggest taking a step back and finding some logical reason for taking out the SAF variation; something better than WP:I don't like it.
 * Ever think how the term "politically correct" includes the word "correct"? In this case here, SAF is one of the correct terms, used by author Peter McWilliams in Peter McWilliams' personal electronics book (1988), a writer in Velo News in 2005, author Kevin Sinnott in his 2010 book on coffee roasting, author Neil Cherry in Linux Smart Homes for Dummies, and by the several authors of Marketing (2007). The term is used, it's out there in the world, and we have a responsibility to discuss it. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am blocked from editing that part of the article. It has been screenshotted and the relevant people have been contact. I believe you have now been reported as abusing your power. The source you originally linked to had NO mention of this SAF but it did mention a WAF as per the title.

I strongly feel you overstepped your boundaries and it has been noted by myself and others. Furthermore it seems like I am not the only one. There are at least 2 others who disagree with your viewpoint. I strongly feel you're just being overly politically correct about the whole situation. A search on google shows a very minimal response for this so called "spousal acceptance factor".

I think you should apologise for calling the person who posted before me and the one after me as my puppets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute, not the end of the world. You are trying to remove SAF without giving any reason while I am trying to keep it with the support of a handful of fine, reliable references. I can understand your frustration but I cannot agree to the removal of SAF in the circumstances. It is a popular term, though not as popular as WAF.
 * I have never called you a puppet, nor have I called anyone else a puppet today. I have no idea where you got that notion.
 * The Boston Globe source does indeed mention SAF in relation to homosexual couples, and in relation to heterosexual couples who do not follow tradition. Many other references support it, too.
 * The boundary I overstepped was in the manner of reverting your unreasoned removal of SAF. I reverted it by using Twinkle, an automated anti-vandalism tool, as a shortcut to doing two separate actions: reverting the removal in the normal fashion and then going to your talk page to warn you against edit warring. Instead of using Twinkle to make this into one action, I should have performed both actions independently or provided an appropriate edit summary, per WP:3RR's guideline: "Remember that anti-vandalism tools such as Twinkle, Huggle and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." Per the prominent notice at the top of the WP:Twinkle page, I have always accepted full responsibility for my Twinkle-enhanced actions. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have edited out your spite from the article. Please note you will be watched by myself and your peers for your constant abuse of powers. Regardless I have allowed your SAF politically correct crap in there so hope you're happy. Never realised the W in WAF stood for Spouse. Perhaps you can create a page for Spouse acceptance factor and say it's a play on the original term Wife acceptance factor. 123.243.203.94 (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Spite plays no part of my editing of this article—the material I added was not put there to spite you, it was put there to flesh it out and explain it as fully as possible. All I am doing is looking at references and relaying what they say. This edit you performed takes away valuable references and useful elaboration on the various terms that people use. I am returning that material, not out of spite, but because it is referenced and accurate. Please do not remove referenced text. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Spite plays a massive part in the article as you went to a massive amount of effort in order to be politically correct. Do not edit this as I have been more than fair to your PC trash. This is the final compromise. If you DARE edit a single thing I will use every ounce of energy to put an end to your reign of abuse and warring.123.243.203.94 (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no spite involved from me, just calm insistence that accurate detail is much better for articles than the removal of references and text. My "reign" is not at issue here, just good Wikipedia practices. I have submitted a request for a third opinion at WP:3O. Please check your personal attacks per WP:NPA with comments such as "fair to your PC trash." Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reported you for your continual edit warring and referred this on. If you want to have this SAF nonsense I suggest you create a seperate page for it because I'm not sure if you know but WAF stands for something else :) 123.243.203.94 (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The concept of "wife acceptance factor" includes "woman" and "spouse" in a wide variety of sources consisting of magazine articles from the '80s, '90s and 2000s, and from other sources such as books. There is no action you can take which will erase the popular usage of terms such as "woman acceptance factor" and "spouse acceptance factor". Those terms are in use, which means we have a responsibility to describe them to the best of our abilities, using references. Telling the reader how and why a variant term has been used is part of encyclopedic writing. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that the underlying concept is the same between "wife acceptance factor" (WAF) and "spouse acceptance factor" (SAF)—the psychology is the exact same and the socioeconomic conditions are too. A new article for SAF is not indicated. It all falls under the same topic. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As a final sign of good will I demand an apology for your blatant abuses in which you received a caution and a block. Your edit warring, incorrect mark of vandal and 3RR. I also ask that you add Partner acceptance factor to the article. That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's focus on our content dispute. If you want to report Binksternet about something he's done, please go ahead and do it, but there's no need to continue threatening to do it on this page.  "Partner acceptance factor" could certainly also be added in the same breath as spouse acceptance factor, if there are reliable sources to back up its addition.  Please bring them forward if you have them, anon. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 13:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was moved to Wife acceptance factor since it is not a proper noun. —harej (T) 06:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Woman acceptance factor → Wife Acceptance Factor &mdash; The original and still the most common usage of the term WAF is "Wife Acceptance Factor", not Woman or Spouse. First instance I can find is September 1983 in Stereophile magazine. Reference found in article. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:3O
I really don't see any issue with including "spouse acceptance factor" in the article -- it seems properly cited. It's just a variation on a theme, so I admit I'm a little baffled as to the anon's hostility. Speaking of which, anon, you really need to tone it down or you could be blocked from editing; please read our policies that require civility and prohibit personal attacks. For instance, there's no need to call Binksternet's edit a "stupid re-revision", and threats of this nature are particularly unwelcome. (Ah, I see you two have a history: -- this explains things a little better).

As before, there's been a bit of edit warring over the past couple of days but unlike before when things began to spiral out of control, Binksternet properly escalated this to one of the options available as part of dispute resolution, in this case seeking out a third opinion.

To the anon: Wikipedia can have a really steep learning curve, its policies are not always intuitive, and it appears that you've run headlong into some rough treatment (some of which you brought on yourself by being rude). Here are my suggestions to you:


 * Be civil. Speak to others here as you would among polite company.  We don't have to agree with one another, but we do need to be respectful of one another.
 * Confine your comments to discussions that are only about article content, as opposed to making comments about other Wikipedians themselves.
 * Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies, including these core policies, as well as those contained at dispute resolution options and consensus-based editing.
 * Consider registering for an account -- it will be easier to address you, will protect your privacy, and also make it less likely that people will dismiss your edits and comments.
 * If you find yourself in trouble, don't adopt a battlefield mentality, ask for help. There are lots of people here who would rather help you learn your way around than see you either blocked for violating policies or no longer editing because you got frustrated.

I have watchlisted this page, FWIW.

&mdash; e. ripley\talk 16:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He has marked me as a vandal, failed to apologise and continued to edit war. Basically if you look at the history of the page you can see it's filed with spite just to rub it in my face and one up me. The term is WAF and stands for that. A seperate page for his SAF nonsense would be in order.

Keep in mind I have done nothing wrong, he has edit warred with me and countless others (you can see this on his talk page) incorrectly given me a 3rr and incorrectly marked me as a vandal. I'd suggest we seek a more fairer view of the term rather than citing every single quote. Can I pull up every single quote I can to make my point heard?

123.243.203.94 (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the accusations of vandalism, he has acknowledged his mistake in using rollback; what more would you like to happen? Usually when someone uses rollback in an improper way, particularly an experienced editor like Binksternet, it's done out of thoughtlessness rather than malice, so I think it's best if you drop that line of pursuit (at this point, it's making you look tendentious and petty -- remember that the ultimate goal here is to build an encyclopedia, not to mete out vengeance against other editors or try to settle personal scores).
 * I honestly feel the user went about it with malice and if you look at his history and the fact that he was blocked for numerous offences, it certainly gives more weight to that. I don't think it makes me look petty as much as it makes him look petty. Considering he is such a senior contributor and member. Then again you could be all backing each other up. Not sure how it all works. But take it from my point of view and read into the situation and you will see. I'm not going to write a whole essay on the matter. I still have no received any apology for his actions either but I'm happy to build an encylopedia which is why I edited articles in the first place containing mistakes. I never realised that wiki is about being so PC. Yet when I add something that is also PC, but my local tongue, it's then unedited back, thus showing a clear double standard or hypocrisy. It's fairly damning actually and has given me the idea that anon/IP editor just can't win (in regards to PAF).123.243.203.94 (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was removed because it wasn't sourced properly. If you have sourcing to back up its usage then it can be added back in, which is what we're discussing now. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 18:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to file a report on me, do so. Please do not continue to debate the actions of editors here on this talk page; debate the content and the arguments. There never was any malice on my part and there still isn't. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding a separate page for "spouse acceptance factor," my opinion is that would be inappropriate because as a variant of the concept already described in this article, it would be necessary to essentially recreate this entire article in order to explain it properly at another page, and that would be duplicative and pointless. His opinion (and mine, at this point) that "spouse acceptance factor" should be included here is not "nonsense" and I will ask you once again to please stop using language intended to demean others' opinions.  They are as valid as yours. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 13:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could we edit the article so there is more focus on where the term originally comes from and what most people understand the term and remove some of the information about SAF. We can keep SAF there but just link to the article. I don't understand why Linux or X10 is there. Also my opinion is that it is being too PC but no one takes that seriously, so I don't understand why we should care about his opinion. We need to be fair. Oh in regards to demeaning, try being in my shoes, still without the apology and being on the end of an edit war with a keyboard warrior.123.243.203.94 (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Linux X-10 book is very useful because the author explains the concept in detail—the acceptance or approval of both spouses is key to the attraction of home automation. The Boston Globe article is useful because it says that "spouse acceptance factor" appeared for the purpose of including gay couples, and hetero couples where sex roles were not so traditionally defined. These sources are important to why the variations are in use. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with e. ripley. A seperate "spouce acceptance factor" article would be an improper WP:POVFORK - there is no indication that it is anything different than WAF. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  15:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"partner" does not appear to be in source
I reverted this edit because it does not appear that the content actually appears in the source. However, if anyone has full access to the source and the term DOES appear, please feel free to revert me. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  18:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The variation "partner" has appeared here and there, so perhaps one of these sources is strong enough to merit inclusion:
 * Kilian Bakker writing in HiFi magazine, March 2009. (Dutch language)
 * Chris Boylan writing in Big Picture, Big Sound, May 1, 2005
 * Atlantic Cabling: "Ten Home Automation Mistakes"
 * Jeff Rabin writing for Enjoy The Music
 * Chimera Labs: "Rebuilding Vintage Transformers"
 * Glenn Oliver Strauss writing for Sensible Sound, April 1, 2008.
 * Patrick Hart writing for Audioholics, March 2005
 * Greg Borrowman writing for the Sydney Morning Herald, September 3, 1995


 * That last one is pretty darn specific. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly new and yes I am an IP editor but I feel partner acceptance factor deserves to be included as in my local tongue, the term spouse is rarely used, rather partner. Surely if we include spouse, we can include partner. If my local SMH (Sydney morning herald) includes it, then why can't it be added and why must my edit be removed?123.243.203.94 (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We are determining the answer now. I feel that PAF can be included, and so do you. Active Banana does not. Let's see who else weighs in. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So wait, the content that goes up on Wikipedia will vary depending on who puts it up? Despite my local tongue being backed up by a source (SMH) article it won't be put up? I think the rules should be fair and clear cut. I know IP editors are frowned upon but, if you can have information about spouse, why can't I have information about partner? There are both sources there?123.243.203.94 (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You and I both have sources for PAF, but if we wait and get consensus here on the talk page, when you reinsert PAF (with a solid reference this time) then it will not easily be removed. The steadier we are in this discussion, the steadier the article will be. I think another day of patience is in order before you go live with your PAF bit. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should we wait to add my PAF bit. You didn't wait to add your stuff, just reverted my edit. Why can't I do likewise. PAF is as common as SAF but just uses my local lingo/tongue. The SMH article can be found to support this.123.243.203.94 (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to speak for Active Banana, but I think his issue with the text is that it wasn't supported by any sourcing (i.e. the source that was named didn't support it), but my feeling is that if you were to produce such sourcing, he would probably be amenable. AB please do correct me if I'm wrong. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 03:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Waiting can help defuse objections, if the waiting includes discussion growing toward consensus. If you feel like you are ready to put up PAF, 123.243.203.94, go ahead and do so. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How long must I wait before I can add PAF?123.243.203.94 (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So can I add PAF or not123.243.203.94 (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "If you feel like you are ready to put up PAF, 123.243.203.94, go ahead and do so." Binksternet (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What a bunch of nonsense
Woah. All this fuss about an article on a cute phrase some columnist made up? IMHO, this page shouldn't even exist.

It's garden variety columnist neologizing, and it's bogus. You can't go creating a wikipedia page for every right-on turn of phrase Maureen Dowd comes up with.

Delete. As soon as possible.--Atlantictire (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, this page definitely does not have feminism's sword, so no one gets to engage in any grrrrrrrrrrrrrrl posturing.--Atlantictire (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The term can be found in a great many sources; it was a cute phrase at one time but it must have hit a nerve, and now lots of people use it. I think the page should exist.


 * I imagine that the Feminism project banner added by Ysangkok in November 2009 was added because of the word "wife". Seems like a reasonable connection to me. Binksternet (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Atlantictire, you're of course free to nominate this article for deletion at WP:AFD if you feel that strongly. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 18:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, I read up on it a bit, and I suppose it is a legitimate expression that's been in use for a while.


 * The article definitely needs work, and I'm not so sure about the definition. It sounds as if "wife acceptance factor" is a play on consumer electronics terms like "form factor" and "power factor". It's not so much an "estimation" as it is a design element that will appeal to the tech-illiterate. As in, “Yeah, and check out the retro chrome display. I’d say that’s wife acceptance factor right there.”--Atlantictire (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a stupid and non-encyclopedic page. But you'd be likely to have to fight Wikipedia's more immature editors to get it deleted, which is a chore often not worth undertaking. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

2022 proposed deletion
I stumbled upon this article and felt really surprised it's here on Wikipedia. It feels like a bad joke from 15 years ago, and after reading the talk history, maybe that's exactly what it is. Deletion hasn't been considered for 10 years. I do not believe it meets criteria for notability. Additionally, the underlying 'factor' is plainly sexist. 207.229.172.29 (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This is not like any other article on Wikipedia that discusses people or events or objects;  it’s just an opinion.  Maybe it can go in Urban Dictionary or a historic catalogue of humour and hot takes.  How do we vote for deletion? Whophd (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree that it's not a good article. However, looks like the article survived a deletion discussion within the past year (Articles for deletion/Wife acceptance factor), so it doesn't seem helpful to try again at deletion. Seems more effective to add context to the article about the history of the idea of "WAF" and criticism of it. I added a bit, but it could use a lot more. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)