- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.
Request for Comment edit
This is a disagreement about where this page should redirect to. Until today, Girl-girl redirected to Lesbianism in erotica. An editor changed the redirect to Pornography and another editor has reverted it. This has resulted in a revert war between the two editors. 04:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Statements by editors involved in dispute edit
*Redirect to Pornography This term is used exclusively in the modern porn industry. It does not apply to any of the other genres (written, fine art) featured in Lesbianism in erotica. Term does not address literature, fine art, etc. depicting sex between women. Joie de Vivre (from edit summaries on History:Girl-girl.)
—The preceding comment was added by Iamcuriousblue (talk • contribs).
- This comment was cut-and-pasted by User:Iamcuriousblue without my knowledge or permission. It was not added by me. Joie de Vivre 16:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Lesbianism in erotica The term "girl-girl" does indeed generally mean "girl-girl" pornography, that is, pornography featuring depictions of lesbian sex. This is one of the subjects covered by the article Lesbianism in erotica. This article broadly covers the topic of erotic depictions of lesbianism in everything from painting, to cinema, to contemporary pornography. There is no other article that covers lesbian depictions in pornography exclusively, so it is appropriate that the phrase "girl-girl" redirects to "Lesbianism in erotica". I'll also note that the phrase "lesbian pornography" redirects there as well. Iamcuriousblue 04:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum: User:Celithemis proposes that the page should Redirect to Lesbianism in erotica#Lesbianism in contemporary pornography. I agree with this and modify my proposal as per Celithemis. Iamcuriousblue 05:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. As of Sunday 10 March, it's become apparent that Iamcuriousblue does not value (or perhaps understand) the concept of a fair discussion. Rather than inform me of this request for comment and allow me to speak for myself, Iamcuriousblue cut and pasted a prior comment I had made, and then continued the discussion as though I had stated my views. I am grateful to edgarde for pointing this out to me. I don't take kindly to someone using me like a puppet, even if they repeat a prior statement of mine while doing so. Iamcuriousblue, representing someone else's position without their knowledge is dishonest and disrespectful. Joie de Vivre (Comment made March 10th)
Redirect to PornographyRedirect to List of pornographic sub-genres#Lesbian pornography On to the topic at hand: another misrepresentation of Iamcuriousblue is that Girl-girl previously redirected to an article section (specifically, "Lesbianism in contemporary pornography"). This is inaccurate; previously, Girl-girl redirected to the main article, Lesbianism in erotica.
- My original issue with redirecting to the main article is that Lesbianism in erotica encompasses depictions in fine art, in literature, and in mainstream cinema, as well as those in pornography. This usage of "girl-girl" is far too broad. I strongly doubt that anyone would use the phrase "girl-girl" to describe the erotic scenes depicted in the frescoes of Pompeii. I challenge anyone to prove that the phrase "girl-girl" is used with any regularity outside of pornography -- it simply is not. "Girl-girl" is a term used only to describe pornography. Using the phrase "girl-girl" as though it were commonly used to describe fine art would be crude and inaccurate. We wouldn't use the term "girl-girl" to describe the Shunga woodblock prints from Japan, nor would we describe the scenes in the paintings of Klimt as "girl-girl" scenes. To use this phrase in this manner would demean works of fine art and literature. Using this phrase in such a way here is not reflected in any typical use of the English language. It's not appropriate to use the phrase in a way that is not reflected socially. Redirecting to the main article would acknowledge such a usage as typical, which is neither accurate or appropriate.
- Until now, I was not aware of Wikipedia's capability to redirect to article sections. Personally, I find redirecting to an article section to be a bad solution. The main question is this: what happens to a redirect to an article section, if someone later renames the section? The editor would be completely unaware that when they rename the section, they would cause the link in another article to break. The redirect to the article section would then double-redirect to the main article, which would be unacceptable, for the reasons listed above. I personally find this lack of traceability to be a fault in the structure of Wikipedia. Regardless, as it is allowed, a section link is admissible, but, in my opinion, it is not advisable. Under no circumstances should girl-girl redirect to the main article of Lesbianism in erotica. In my opinion, Girl-girl should redirect to
PornographyList of pornographic sub-genres#Lesbian pornography, as girl-girl is used exclusively to refer to pornography. Not all erotica is pornographic. Let's preserve this distinction. Joie de Vivre 18:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have very little to add to this, except that I'm misrepresented several times in the above statement. I in fact informed JdV immediately after I created this RfC, and this can be seen at User_talk:Joie_de_Vivre#RFC.2Fdiscussion_of_article_Girl-girl, where my notice about this RfC precedes Edgardes. Nor is there anywhere where I try to state that the link "previously" went to that section – the modification of my position based on the suggestion of User:Celithemis is posted above for the record. Its one thing to suspect my motivations, but this blatant misrepresentation of the plain fact of what I've written makes me really wonder where this user is coming from.
- As for the arguments against redirecting to Lesbianism in erotica, I really don't know what JdV is going on about. One of the topics of the article is girl-girl pornography, users clicking on girl-girl in an article will go to an article that in part specifically discusses girl-girl porn, unlike if they get redirected to Pornography. Seems open and shut to me. (And if they somehow end up at the beginning of the article rather than the exact section on girl-girl pornography, so what – I think Wikipedia users know how to scroll through an article to find relevant content.) The idea that an article that just because the topic of historic erotica is somehow "demeaned" by association with contemporary pornography and that a strict distinction must be maintained between "erotica" and "pornography" just strikes me as so much POV pushing. Iamcuriousblue 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong, wrong, wrong. I never said that a strict distinction must be made. What I did say is that "not all erotica is pornography". I'll spell it out for you: this means that some erotica is pornography, and some erotica is not pornography. "Girl-girl" refers specifically to a genre of pornography, and the term should redirect to
PornographyList of pornographic sub-genres#Lesbian pornography. Joie de Vivre 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong, wrong, wrong. I never said that a strict distinction must be made. What I did say is that "not all erotica is pornography". I'll spell it out for you: this means that some erotica is pornography, and some erotica is not pornography. "Girl-girl" refers specifically to a genre of pornography, and the term should redirect to
- I would also like to admit that yes, I was incorrect in stating that User:Iamcuriousblue had not informed me of the RFC. I must have missed it. However, this does not change the bad form they displayed in cutting and pasting a prior comment of mine, rather than letting me comment for myself. Joie de Vivre 16:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments edit
- Iamcuriousblue 04:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC) I'll also note that there is some history behind this. The editor who suggests moving the redirect to "Pornography", User:Joie de Vivre, very recently retitled and rewrote much of Lesbianism in erotica, a move which I reverted. The ensuing discussion, which can be seen at Talk: Lesbianism in erotica: Renaming article, largely supported this reversion. Also, I made several other changes to pornography-related articles edited by JdV, something that brought some extremely angry commentary to my talk page and subseqent actions that I feel are retaliatory, this page redirect being one of them. (I have put in a formal request for mediation on this larger dispute.)
- I agree that the redirect to Lesbianism in erotica is more appropriate, since it is more directly relevant. However, redirecting directly to the subsection Lesbianism in erotica#Lesbianism in contemporary pornography is worth considering. —Celithemis 04:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with that idea, however, given the nature of Wikipedia technology, that doesn't really work. "#REDIRECT Lesbianism in erotica#Lesbianism in contemporary pornography" only effectively redirects to the top of the "Lesbianism in erotica" page, so it doesn't make any difference. (I just tested this out in the Sandbox, so I know this is the case.) I certainly wish Wikipedia would allow redirects to go to article sections, but unfortunately it doesn't. Iamcuriousblue 05:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- It does work -- they added the ability just recently. See my user sandbox for an example. I think maybe it requires the [[double brackets]] to work. —Celithemis 05:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weird – it doesn't work on my computer (and I always use double brackets, in any event). Anyway, I agree with your idea, generally speaking, so I'll modify my proposal per your suggestion. Iamcuriousblue 05:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- It does work -- they added the ability just recently. See my user sandbox for an example. I think maybe it requires the [[double brackets]] to work. —Celithemis 05:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with that idea, however, given the nature of Wikipedia technology, that doesn't really work. "#REDIRECT Lesbianism in erotica#Lesbianism in contemporary pornography" only effectively redirects to the top of the "Lesbianism in erotica" page, so it doesn't make any difference. (I just tested this out in the Sandbox, so I know this is the case.) I certainly wish Wikipedia would allow redirects to go to article sections, but unfortunately it doesn't. Iamcuriousblue 05:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the redirect to Lesbianism in erotica. The pornography redirect did not seem pertinent, that article barely containing a mention of same-sex pornography. The redirect to the specific section ws a good idea and seems to be working properly.--ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Lesbianism in erotica, per my comment in Talk:Lesbianism in erotica I didn't know this term was porn-specific, so I'm not the best judge, but as they are currently written, the Lesbianism in erotica article as covers this type of material better than does Pornography... The Lesbianism in contemporary pornography seems well-suited. / edgarde 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)- I am very concerned that Joie de Vivre's comment above was entered by another editor. We have not yet heard from Joie de Vivre in this discussion. I am striking my comment until that side is presented, and have done the same with the statement attributed to Joie de Vivre. My apologies for not noticing this earlier. / edgarde 14:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- You know, I did leave a message on JdV's talk page, immediately after I created the RfC, in fact. I was certainly not trying to go behind JdV's back on this. Looking at User contributions:Joie de Vivre shows this user hasn't made any edits for over 24 hours. Hopefully when JdV gets back, there will be a response from this user. As for the statement about JdVs position, those are JdVs words, taken verbatim from the user's edit history statements. Of course, JdV has every right to modify those statements if and when this user chooses to participate in this conversation. Iamcuriousblue 16:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of having the right to enter a position. In an RfC, User:Joie de Vivre needs to be represented by User:Joie de Vivre (or some JdV-authorized representative), and comments were being posted possibly under the assumption (as I made) that JdV has entered a statement.
- You know, I did leave a message on JdV's talk page, immediately after I created the RfC, in fact. I was certainly not trying to go behind JdV's back on this. Looking at User contributions:Joie de Vivre shows this user hasn't made any edits for over 24 hours. Hopefully when JdV gets back, there will be a response from this user. As for the statement about JdVs position, those are JdVs words, taken verbatim from the user's edit history statements. Of course, JdV has every right to modify those statements if and when this user chooses to participate in this conversation. Iamcuriousblue 16:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am very concerned that Joie de Vivre's comment above was entered by another editor. We have not yet heard from Joie de Vivre in this discussion. I am striking my comment until that side is presented, and have done the same with the statement attributed to Joie de Vivre. My apologies for not noticing this earlier. / edgarde 14:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll enter a comment after we hear from JdV. If JdV chooses not to participate, and the reversions continue, another approach will need to be taken. But right now it's just not that hot an issue. Fairness is more important than speed in this situation. / edgarde 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay I've unstruck my comment and now side with redirect to Lesbianism in erotica for the abovementioned reasons.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarde (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 March 2007
- Struck it again. I'm a capricious voter. Anyway, while I still weakly favor a redirect to Lesbianism in erotica (because that link contains actual content on the subject), I think a redirect to List of pornographic sub-genres#Lesbian pornography is an acceptable compromise. My reasons are detailed in the thread below where User:Joie de Vivre makes this suggestion. / edgarde 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay I've unstruck my comment and now side with redirect to Lesbianism in erotica for the abovementioned reasons.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarde (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 March 2007
- I'll enter a comment after we hear from JdV. If JdV chooses not to participate, and the reversions continue, another approach will need to be taken. But right now it's just not that hot an issue. Fairness is more important than speed in this situation. / edgarde 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Iamcuriousblue. It's more specific. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)See below --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- (I'm not sure where to best put this comment with all the refactoring going on, please bear with me.) I appreciate the reasoning that this is a porn-specific term, and that there is a distinction. However, redirecting to Pornography would be worse, since much of pornography is similarly not girl-girl. If there is a specific section on girl-girl pornography, that would be equal to a section in Lesbianism in erotica, then that would at least be an equal argument. Until then, the lesbian erotica/girl-girl pornography distinction is much less than that between girl-girl and, say, boy-girl pornography. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent point. I have changed my statement and now suggest that Girl-girl, a pornographic sub-genre should redirect to List of pornographic sub-genres#Lesbian pornography. Joie de Vivre 17:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think I like that even better. It is even more specific, and while that section doesn't have much content, it has some, and it bears a prominent Main article: Lesbianism in erotica link to the rest of the content. (Just don't go deleting that one! Renaming to "related article" or something may do, it's clearly related.) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I like that suggestion too and wouldn't object to it as a compromise -- the section in List of pornographic sub-genres makes a useful placeholder in case an article on "girl-girl pornography" (by whatever name it's given) emerges. Since this controversy seems to arise from wikilinks from porn articles, the absense of such a page may be part of the problem (tho I'm not sure the subject of Girl-girl porn merits it's own article.)
- Con: it's mostly just a link to Lesbianism in erotica that requires an additional click.
- Con: If someone re-titles that section, it breaks the link. (Article retitles usually generate their own re-directs; but nothing like this exists for sections.)
- Pro: there's a link to Lesbian there, which may be what some people searching on this term are actually looking for. (Although most links to this term seem to be from porn articles, so at this time that may be a very weak benefit.)
- Pro: placeholder for future, more specific potential article.
- I'm striking my redirect to LiE vote again. Both currently proposed redirects work fine for me. / edgarde 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I like that suggestion too and wouldn't object to it as a compromise -- the section in List of pornographic sub-genres makes a useful placeholder in case an article on "girl-girl pornography" (by whatever name it's given) emerges. Since this controversy seems to arise from wikilinks from porn articles, the absense of such a page may be part of the problem (tho I'm not sure the subject of Girl-girl porn merits it's own article.)
- I still oppose changing the redirect. Why go from a direct link to an indirect one? It seems to come down to the idea that some people have a problem with the idea of lesbianism in historic erotica and contemporary pornography being covered in the same article. I think its a strength of the article that it covers all of these subjects – like it or not, there's a historical continuity there, as much as some people might like to create a strict distinction between "pornography" and "erotica" (a distinction which is often highly artificial and more than a little bit POV, in my opinion). Iamcuriousblue 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Battle of the article subsections! For the love of Mike (Mickey?), can't the two of you get together, and make a full fledged, separate, "Lesbianism in contemporary pornography" article that girl-girl can redirect to, so that we don't have this argument? It's clearly a notable genre, hundreds if not thousands of films, and the encyclopedia will grow. One tenth of the text spent on this argument would make a fine article. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I still oppose changing the redirect. Why go from a direct link to an indirect one? It seems to come down to the idea that some people have a problem with the idea of lesbianism in historic erotica and contemporary pornography being covered in the same article. I think its a strength of the article that it covers all of these subjects – like it or not, there's a historical continuity there, as much as some people might like to create a strict distinction between "pornography" and "erotica" (a distinction which is often highly artificial and more than a little bit POV, in my opinion). Iamcuriousblue 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- My support for the redirect to List of pornographic sub-genres was as an acceptable compromise. I agree "porn" vs. "erotica" is largely a subjective distinction, but I also think the Girl-girl wikilink in pornstar bios isn't optimally served by Lesbianism in erotica.
- As AnonEMouse points out, this redirect is such a small thing, and anyway it will be superceeded when a specific page is made for that subject. JdV has modified her initial position (as I remember it) substantially. How about a compromise? / edgarde 16:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am still opposed to the new redirect, but I agree, the difference in proposals is now a small one, ultimately going to the same article section. (Unlike the wholesale redirect to Pornography, a non-specific and tenuously connected redirect – that was totally unacceptable.) I really don't think it makes sense to replace a direct link with an indirect one, but if that's the only thing we can get consensus on, then fine – I'm going to say for the record I'm opposed to it, but I'm not going to fight it either. And I do have a bigger issue with the idea that content about girl-girl pornography is out of place in the "Lesbianism in erotica" article or that it in some way "degrades" discussion of early erotic art – that's so much politically correct nonsense. A separate breakout article on girl-girl porn would be called for if enough content gets written on the subject to merit breaking out into a separate article (and maybe I or someone else will contribute that at some point), but until then, I think its perfectly fine as a subsection of "Lesbianism in erotica". Iamcuriousblue 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well said. / edgarde 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am still opposed to the new redirect, but I agree, the difference in proposals is now a small one, ultimately going to the same article section. (Unlike the wholesale redirect to Pornography, a non-specific and tenuously connected redirect – that was totally unacceptable.) I really don't think it makes sense to replace a direct link with an indirect one, but if that's the only thing we can get consensus on, then fine – I'm going to say for the record I'm opposed to it, but I'm not going to fight it either. And I do have a bigger issue with the idea that content about girl-girl pornography is out of place in the "Lesbianism in erotica" article or that it in some way "degrades" discussion of early erotic art – that's so much politically correct nonsense. A separate breakout article on girl-girl porn would be called for if enough content gets written on the subject to merit breaking out into a separate article (and maybe I or someone else will contribute that at some point), but until then, I think its perfectly fine as a subsection of "Lesbianism in erotica". Iamcuriousblue 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus edit
Since we seem to have reached consensus, I am going to make Girl-girl redirect to List of pornographic sub-genres#Lesbian pornography. If I have misinterpreted anyone's position, please speak up. Joie de Vivre 18:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think this issue is settled. Discussion of related controversies can happen on the affected pages, or (in the case of disputes between two editors) in civil User talk page discussion. Can we agree to close this RfC? / edgarde 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- No objections here. Joie de Vivre 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is settled, however, I do feel that some of the language in List of pornographic sub-genres#Lesbian pornography has accuracy and NPOV problems, and intend to re-edit it. First, I really don't think there is any such genre as "Lipstick lesbian porn" – perhaps whoever wrote this is thinking of some of the lesbian-oriented softcore videos from Wolfe Video and the like? The differentiation between girl-girl porn aimed (mostly) at a male audience and by-lesbian for-lesbian porn is real enough, but there are minor NPOV issues – the scare quotes around "lesbian" in the first sentence and the statement about "cliches" of girl-girl porn in the second. Also, the statement about stereotypical feminine appearance in the third paragraph tends to imply some rather stereotypical ideas about "real" lesbians. Iamcuriousblue 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm gonna close this one. Iamcuriousblue: can you copy/paste most of the preceeding comment into Talk:List of pornographic sub-genres? More people will read it there, so you'll get better feedback. / edgarde 15:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
RfC closed edit
The outcome was: redirect to List of pornographic sub-genres#Lesbian pornography
Futher concerns about List of pornographic sub-genres#Lesbian pornography will be better discussed on that discussion page. Since this has the potential to be controversial, it would be helpful to discuss edits before making them. / edgarde 15:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.