User talk:Dollist

Sex doll
Hello. The reason I removed the edit is that is does not fit in with the rest of the article. It is a trivial example of someone using the doll but notice how there are no other stories like that in the article. If there were an article on "silly uses people make of sex dolls that captures the public's attention for a couple of hours" then it would belong there. But in an encyclopedic article about the subject as a whole it just does not belong. At this point if you feel like it does in fact belong in the article then the proper approach is to bring it up for discussion on the talk page for the article and achieve a consensus view that it does belong. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, I am not denying its popularity but more its appropriateness for inclusion in an article that has no other trivial information like that. It just does not help the general reader better understand the subject of sex dolls. We are an encyclopedia and not a list of funny or interesting stories. Also, you appear to have an agenda and are attempting to improve the image of sex dolls. Wikipedia is not the place for anyone with any kind of agenda that compromises the neutrality we strive so hard to achieve. SQGibbon (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The nature of the impact that the newspaper coverage achieved is rather more than trivial on account of its extent.

With regard to the neutrality that Wikipedia aims to achieve, illustrating a rather unpleasant example especially with the label "high end" and especially at the head of the page is prejudicial and hardly neutral. The example chosen is neither high end in the context of present production, it being now "old fashioned", nor typical of what is available now. Dollist (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I know little to nothing about this subject and I don't see anything particularly wrong with the image. But if you have one that you think is better and it is properly licensed for use on Wikipedia then we can certainly use it instead.


 * As for the rest, if you have a reliable secondary source that discusses it while discussing the greater cultural impact (not that it happened and lots of people saw it) on people's perceptions about love, being single, what these dolls mean to their owners, how everyone's reactions to that incident indicate certain biases or perceptions, etc., in short a serious article addressing much bigger issues dealing with how human society regards and responds to sex dolls using that incident as a springboard for such a discussion, then you can add it back into the article. All you've done so far is to mention that it happened but haven't provided any encyclopedic context to help readers understand why what happened matters and is significant. Again, this is an encyclopedia and not a collection of trivia no matter how many people experienced the trivia.


 * Also, I just tagged all your recent additions to the article as needing citations. You must provide citations whenever you add material like that. Editors typically just revert edits like that and if you don't provide citations soon-ish then they will be reverted. SQGibbon (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your very extensive and helpful response. This is an area where written sources do not always surface but I have tried to give useful citations which collectively and individually bring forward the subject with the information that is emerging - and particularly the demographics of China are moving interest significantly. The citations I've given hopefully will be useful indicators for anyone to follow and further search around the subject accordingly.

The images https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sandydayoff.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sandyrust.jpg have been deleted and appropriately appealed with the copyright owner manufacturer of the doll writing to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

These images are http://www.dollalbum.com/dollgallery/albums/userpics/14413/normal_DSCF7550.JPG http://www.dollalbum.com/dollgallery/albums/userpics/14413/normal_DSCF7778.jpg

The developments in the market deriving now from China such that unlike the original "high end" example which is indisputably a sex doll of rather gross appearance, the new generation are significantly useful to artists such as Stacy Leigh and, for instance, an artist who has purchased one from a photographer http://www.uklovedollforums.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=60891&postcount=22

The availability of such capable of usefulness beyond the confines of the bedroom is artistic inspiration enough where possible, I submit, to exemplify as "high end" one which is sufficiently high end that the media has reason to express speculation and or surprise that as or if a "sex doll" it is capable of being used as a photographic model, in contrast to the old generation which could only have one purpose and which propagate revulsion and thereby discrimination against those for whom they serve creative or recreational purposes.

Dollist (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In general online forums are not considered reliable sources (click on that link to learn more) so I removed that one and re-tagged it. You removed another "citation needed" tag without supplying the needed citation so I added it back. I'm not exactly sure what you mean in your last paragraph but it might help to read up on the Wikipedia policy against original research -- basically we are not to publish our own conclusions or theories on Wikipedia. And again you appear to be editing based on a personal (and I hope not a professional) agenda. Please be careful about this and avoid any hint of not remaining neutral. SQGibbon (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful and guiding comments which are noted. Very much a matter both of enthusiasm combined with, and therein the danger, knowledge garnered from the forums and personal experience of such over many years - but in that is experience which can assist in guiding the subject helpfully within appropriate standards of citations and neutrality. The files https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sandydayoff.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sandyrust.jpg are now restored and in the public domain and I submit are useful (a) as a current example of a "high end" doll rather than a former generation, or as a contrast showing the development from only a few years ago, and (b) in their capacity to be used for modelling art and photography rather than as purely sex function objects. Having provided these into the public domain, perhaps can I leave it to you to consider how best they might be used most usefully within the subject?

Many thanks

188.29.82.151 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Having found learned analysis http://www.ejhs.org/volume15/Bare.html about the problems of the sexual imbalance currently in China and leading to a fast emerging sex toy industry seen as a pacification of the problems caused, it seemed appropriate to introduce https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sandyrust.jpg to the page in the context of the new breed of sex-dolls that are emerging within this market in response to the demographic issue. In view of the significant visual improvement from the older generation of sex doll illustrating the top of the page, perhaps consideration might be given for this more attractive example to illustrate the article.

Dollist (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dollist. Sorry I didn't respond sooner -- other things come up and like I said, this is not an area I'm very familiar with. OK, first, like the Sandyrust.jpg picture and think it would work well as the first image on the page if you want to make that change. The sources you've supplied seem reasonable and do a good job of supporting your claims. Be careful about being too wordy in your captions, though, it's not a place for content but a brief description of the image. SQGibbon (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Dollist. While there is nothing wrong with either image, I would definitely oppose any move to put Sandyrust as the first image on the page. Yes clearly sex dolls can be used for other purposes as well, but their prime use is mastubatory. Sandyrust is too atypical to be the first image a reader sees. Sandysdayoff would fit far better. Cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks! Senility strikes :-( I meant Sandydayoff. My mistake. Sandyrust atypical - rather! Thanks

Dollist (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. No need to apologise - we all have lives in the real world as well. I'll leave it for some days or week so that perhaps we might see any comments from others. The existing photo is helpful potentially as an older generation product - whether this is a point that needs to be made, and perhaps not, might be a matter of debate as to whether that photo should be retained lower down the page.

Dollist (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference http://www.reakt.org/ssxxx/ is an interesting exploration of the issues surrounding the Borghild project and perhaps might be worthy of consideration for further reading

Dollist (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Different languages of the Sex Doll page accessible through Google Translate vary from straightforward stubs such as https://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manikang_pantalik to direct translations of the page to pages with expanded sections - such as Sex Dolls in the media for instance including pop groups and in particular the Japanese film Air Doll in 2009 to the Czech page which is arguably imposing judgment on users of sex dolls and justifications with "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" and focusing only on Inflatable dolls without mention of Silicone dolls https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafukovac%C3%AD_panna. The page https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BAp_b%C3%AA_t%C3%ACnh_d%E1%BB%A5c features a photo with a doll tied up, mixing a BDSM connotation with sex dolls which is not universal.

Personally I find the doll example on many pages offputting and therefore potentially prejudicial but without consensus this is a subjective opinion. I do note however that the example photograph is of a 2006 model and Sandy demonstrates significant advancement of the genre over the intervening years.

Dollist (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Dollist (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)