Talk:Hogging (sexual practice)

message: ===Deletion===
I find this to be perhaps the most legit article on such a practice ever. absolutely no reason for speedy deletion. is it distasteful? yes. but how much of wikipedia and urbandictionary is? it does not change the fact that this is an active pastime for degenerates. should we censor knowledge of it though? no. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.160.60 (talk • contribs) .
I agree with the above -- if you take this page down the terrorists will have won. JJG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.36.123.162 (talk • contribs) .
I also agree with the first poster.  This article is legit and is an extension of knowledge.  Why delete such an article if it pertains to a legitimate pursuit of knowledge? 130.160.232.43 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not whether this article is more relevant to people's lives than various Star Trek characters -- the question is whether or not this phenomenon can be proved to exist and be notable, which means worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. As per Wikipedia guidelines, "it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories." If you search online for this topic, Wikipedia, along with the three articles sourced here (which, in my mind, are all of questionable veracity because they refer back to one another and do not independently establish the existence of the topic, with the possible exception of the 2003 Cleve Scene article, which itself is based solely on interviews) is really the main source of information on this topic. I do think this term could be included in a dictionary, like Urban Dictionary or even Wiktionary, but its sources do not provide adequate notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I question if this phenomenon exists, outside of potential isolated incidents, at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.184.87 (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: While the new article is better, I still think it merits a Wiktionary definition at best.  OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a well-sourced and discussed phenomenon, although someone decided to ignore the talk page and speedy it anyway. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Sexual" isn't a proper noun, and I don't think it needs to be capitalised. Furthermore, the disambiguation part of an article's name should be as concise as possible. I'd suggest Hogging (sex). --kingboyk 15:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ON second thoughts, there's no reason I can see why this shouldn't be at hogging. 2 article dab pages are rarely needed, and the other challenger for the slot is really only a dictdef. They have about the same number of incoming links. --kingboyk 15:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I moved it to (sex) for now.  If you feel the disambig isn't worth it, I have absolutely no protests, I think the disambig was created because someone changed this article to the dicdef. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes, we must have been hitting buttons at the same time cos I ended up moving your redirect! lol! Never had that happen before! Anyway... Shall I move it to the main slot or leave it here? --kingboyk 15:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Main slot works.  I had an opportunity to recreate it at (sex) again during the edit conflict, haha. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Again nomniated for speedy deletion based upon all the foregoing. 2600:8804:7100:4000:F13A:A67F:6AD2:DC0A (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006

message: I find this to be perhaps the most legit article on such a practice ever. absolutely no reason for speedy deletion. is it distasteful? yes. but how much of wikipedia and urbandictionary is? it does not change the fact that this is an active pastime for degenerates. should we censor knowledge of it though? no. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.160.60 (talk • contribs) .
I agree with the above -- if you take this page down the terrorists will have won. JJG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.36.123.162 (talk • contribs) .
I also agree with the first poster.  This article is legit and is an extension of knowledge.  Why delete such an article if it pertains to a legitimate pursuit of knowledge? 130.160.232.43 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not whether this article is more relevant to people's lives than various Star Trek characters -- the question is whether or not this phenomenon can be proved to exist and be notable, which means worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. As per Wikipedia guidelines, "it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories." If you search online for this topic, Wikipedia, along with the three articles sourced here (which, in my mind, are all of questionable veracity because they refer back to one another and do not independently establish the existence of the topic, with the possible exception of the 2003 Cleve Scene article, which itself is based solely on interviews) is really the main source of information on this topic. I do think this term could be included in a dictionary, like Urban Dictionary or even Wiktionary, but its sources do not provide adequate notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I question if this phenomenon exists, outside of potential isolated incidents, at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.184.87 (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: I have recreated this article as a completely different article from what was previously here .  Please note the numerous sources and mentions in mainstream and academic publications, and try to keep this article clean.  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 04:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the new article is better, I still think it merits a Wiktionary definition at best.  OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a well-sourced and discussed phenomenon, although someone decided to ignore the talk page and speedy it anyway. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Sexual" isn't a proper noun, and I don't think it needs to be capitalised. Furthermore, the disambiguation part of an article's name should be as concise as possible. I'd suggest Hogging (sex). --kingboyk 15:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ON second thoughts, there's no reason I can see why this shouldn't be at hogging. 2 article dab pages are rarely needed, and the other challenger for the slot is really only a dictdef. They have about the same number of incoming links. --kingboyk 15:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I moved it to (sex) for now.  If you feel the disambig isn't worth it, I have absolutely no protests, I think the disambig was created because someone changed this article to the dicdef. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes, we must have been hitting buttons at the same time cos I ended up moving your redirect! lol! Never had that happen before! Anyway... Shall I move it to the main slot or leave it here? --kingboyk 15:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Main slot works.  I had an opportunity to recreate it at (sex) again during the edit conflict, haha. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Again nomniated for speedy deletion based upon all the foregoing. 2600:8804:7100:4000:F13A:A67F:6AD2:DC0A (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Recreation

message: ===References and citations===
I have added refimprove and notability tags to the article for reasons stated below, questioning the notability of the subject itself, and the reliability of the article's sources. 
One of the sources (the book Get Off your Butt, America!) is self-published, which is not considered acceptable for verifiability: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." I am removing it from the references for this reason. 
Similarly, the article from pointsincase.com (a humour/entertainment website consisting of opinion pieces) does not meet the verifiability standard, because, again quoting from Wikipedia's policy, it is a questionable source: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves." (Emphasis mine.)
Within the Wikipedia article, there is a reference for "An unofficial study by Dr. Judith A. Sanders of the California State Polytechnic University Communications Department in Pomona" which has no in-line citation, and which, if none is provided, I will delete, as it is totally unsubstatiated. I even checked Google Scholar briefly myself to see if I could find the reference by that author, but came up empty-handed.
The paper from Deviant Behavior is from a reliable source, however, it is based mainly on the Cleve Scene article by Sarah Fenske and may not constitute notability. Indeed, because it is a qualitative research and not quantitative research, it cannot demonstrate the prevalence of this practice, which is one factor that would lend proper notability. If this is an isolated practice, or one whose reports cannot be proven to be more than urban legend, then one qualitative paper based on interviews does not establish the practice as notable or even as existing. The Wikipedia notability general notability guideline states that "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability."
What we really have here is a topic described in one "human interest" article, based entirely on interviews of people who claimed to indulge in the practice, and then subsequent articles and references (some questionable, some reliable) were based on that single article. Sarah Fenske herself, in that article, writes: "One universal truth: The boldest hogging stories always happened to someone else. The more savage the act, the better the chance that the guy telling the story didn't do it -- his buddy did. And the buddy, just as frequently, is impossible to track down." She also briefly touches on the impossibility of finding 'victims' of the practice -- either because they were unaware, or simply don't exist. She says, in the article, "It's temping to attribute all hogging to braggadocio and the fine art of BS. Indeed, even some guys who've hogged insist that it's no more than a way to justify drunken actions the morning after."
The bottom line is, simply because multiple references sprung up after one article was published, does not mean this practice is verifiable, even if it does exist. And Wikipedia states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Therefore, even if the practice does exist, it does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia unless it can be verified by reliable sources. I don't think we've demonstrated that here in the article.
I myself thought this was a legitimate phenomenon after reading the Fenske article two years ago, mainly because I did not look any further than that article. When I found this Wikipedia page and read the sources listed, and hunted for more sources, I realized that none of it was verifiable, and all of it gives off a strong odour of urban legend. Furthermore, even if it could be considered verifiable based on the Fenske article and the Deviant Behavior paper, I question whether these are enough to establish notability. 
This article was voted for deletion, and then recreated two years ago, and doesn't appear to have improved since then. If more reliable sources cannot be added, I would propose this article for deletion again. Peggynature (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are fine, from the looks of things.  The "unofficial study" appears to be sources at the end of that paragraph, so I've removed those cite tags, and restored the links and sources you removed because they appear to aid the discussion.  The practice does appear to be verifiable per our policies, and the self-published book is by an established doctor.  Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, looking at the source provided, that he is a MD. That, however, does not make him an expert on the topic of "hogging." Wikipedia, again, states: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." His work on "hogging" was not published in any reliable publications; it was only given a brief mention in his self-published book. Again, I believe this was derived from the original 2003 Cleve Scene article, which essentially makes this a Wikipedia article based on a single article, with references that are likely also based on that single article. Which itself was based on interview. I'm not sure that really makes sense. Peggynature (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He is a heatlh expert.  His work is in the "relevant field."  I do not agree with the rest of your assessment after looking at the sources. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is a sexuality article, not one on medicine. His book and, arguably, his medical practice might constitute expertise on "obesity" and nutrition/exercise, which his book is about -- but that is not what this article about. None of his peer-reviewed publications are even about obesity, however, so his 'expert' status even on that is questionable according to Wikipedia guidelines (see quote above.) Also, if you read closely, the "unofficial study" is NOT the source at the end of that line -- it is referring to the 2003 Fenske article, which is one of only two arguably verifiable sources on this article. The Fenske article itself does not mention the "unofficial" Sanders study, and none of the references on this page point to it either. Peggynature (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its an issue that involves health and social mores.  I disagree on the rest. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, please direct me to the "unofficial" study, if you have found the source for it. Dr. Quarles has never published anything in a reliable source about social mores or sexuality. The fact that he is a MD with a self-published book on weight loss does not make him an expert on "hogging." Peggynature (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008

message: I have added refimprove and notability tags to the article for reasons stated below, questioning the notability of the subject itself, and the reliability of the article's sources. 
One of the sources (the book Get Off your Butt, America!) is self-published, which is not considered acceptable for verifiability: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." I am removing it from the references for this reason. 
Similarly, the article from pointsincase.com (a humour/entertainment website consisting of opinion pieces) does not meet the verifiability standard, because, again quoting from Wikipedia's policy, it is a questionable source: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves." (Emphasis mine.)
Within the Wikipedia article, there is a reference for "An unofficial study by Dr. Judith A. Sanders of the California State Polytechnic University Communications Department in Pomona" which has no in-line citation, and which, if none is provided, I will delete, as it is totally unsubstatiated. I even checked Google Scholar briefly myself to see if I could find the reference by that author, but came up empty-handed.
The paper from Deviant Behavior is from a reliable source, however, it is based mainly on the Cleve Scene article by Sarah Fenske and may not constitute notability. Indeed, because it is a qualitative research and not quantitative research, it cannot demonstrate the prevalence of this practice, which is one factor that would lend proper notability. If this is an isolated practice, or one whose reports cannot be proven to be more than urban legend, then one qualitative paper based on interviews does not establish the practice as notable or even as existing. The Wikipedia notability general notability guideline states that "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability."
What we really have here is a topic described in one "human interest" article, based entirely on interviews of people who claimed to indulge in the practice, and then subsequent articles and references (some questionable, some reliable) were based on that single article. Sarah Fenske herself, in that article, writes: "One universal truth: The boldest hogging stories always happened to someone else. The more savage the act, the better the chance that the guy telling the story didn't do it -- his buddy did. And the buddy, just as frequently, is impossible to track down." She also briefly touches on the impossibility of finding 'victims' of the practice -- either because they were unaware, or simply don't exist. She says, in the article, "It's temping to attribute all hogging to braggadocio and the fine art of BS. Indeed, even some guys who've hogged insist that it's no more than a way to justify drunken actions the morning after."
The bottom line is, simply because multiple references sprung up after one article was published, does not mean this practice is verifiable, even if it does exist. And Wikipedia states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Therefore, even if the practice does exist, it does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia unless it can be verified by reliable sources. I don't think we've demonstrated that here in the article.
I myself thought this was a legitimate phenomenon after reading the Fenske article two years ago, mainly because I did not look any further than that article. When I found this Wikipedia page and read the sources listed, and hunted for more sources, I realized that none of it was verifiable, and all of it gives off a strong odour of urban legend. Furthermore, even if it could be considered verifiable based on the Fenske article and the Deviant Behavior paper, I question whether these are enough to establish notability. 
This article was voted for deletion, and then recreated two years ago, and doesn't appear to have improved since then. If more reliable sources cannot be added, I would propose this article for deletion again. Peggynature (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are fine, from the looks of things.  The "unofficial study" appears to be sources at the end of that paragraph, so I've removed those cite tags, and restored the links and sources you removed because they appear to aid the discussion.  The practice does appear to be verifiable per our policies, and the self-published book is by an established doctor.  Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, looking at the source provided, that he is a MD. That, however, does not make him an expert on the topic of "hogging." Wikipedia, again, states: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." His work on "hogging" was not published in any reliable publications; it was only given a brief mention in his self-published book. Again, I believe this was derived from the original 2003 Cleve Scene article, which essentially makes this a Wikipedia article based on a single article, with references that are likely also based on that single article. Which itself was based on interview. I'm not sure that really makes sense. Peggynature (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He is a heatlh expert.  His work is in the "relevant field."  I do not agree with the rest of your assessment after looking at the sources. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is a sexuality article, not one on medicine. His book and, arguably, his medical practice might constitute expertise on "obesity" and nutrition/exercise, which his book is about -- but that is not what this article about. None of his peer-reviewed publications are even about obesity, however, so his 'expert' status even on that is questionable according to Wikipedia guidelines (see quote above.) Also, if you read closely, the "unofficial study" is NOT the source at the end of that line -- it is referring to the 2003 Fenske article, which is one of only two arguably verifiable sources on this article. The Fenske article itself does not mention the "unofficial" Sanders study, and none of the references on this page point to it either. Peggynature (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its an issue that involves health and social mores.  I disagree on the rest. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, please direct me to the "unofficial" study, if you have found the source for it. Dr. Quarles has never published anything in a reliable source about social mores or sexuality. The fact that he is a MD with a self-published book on weight loss does not make him an expert on "hogging." Peggynature (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References and citations

message: ===Requested move===
*Hogging just redirects here, if there's no alternative terms shouldn't we move this there? Tyciol (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009

message: *Hogging just redirects here, if there's no alternative terms shouldn't we move this there? Tyciol (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: You won't find such rubbish in a reference encyclopaedia.
109.150.239.76 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I Second Deletion of this article as not notable enough to merit proper inclusion. 2600:8804:7100:4000:F13A:A67F:6AD2:DC0A (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete 

message: If this is going to be a legitimate Wikipedia article, we need better sources. I am starting to expand the article using the sources referenced here. I also removed Get Off Your Butt, America!, because that is not a reliable source. --Iamozy (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: Explain the practice, not the reasoning behind it. Especially not reasoning as explained by opinion pieces and biased theses. predcon (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "Justification" section.