| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sexual addiction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:
More detail is given on this point, below.
Q1: Why don't you state sexual addiction as fact?
A1: Our policies on Wikipedia, in particular WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, require us to provide coverage to views based on their prominence within reliable sources, and we must reflect the opinion of the scientific community as accurately as possible. For example, if the APA will include sexual addiction in the DSM, then Wikipedia will rubber-stamp its decision. Otherwise, Wikipedia isn't here to give a "fair and balanced" treatment to your pet ideas. In this respect, Wikipedia is merely a mirror which reflects medical orthodoxy.
|
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Sexual addiction be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Sexual addiction.
|
Confusion in the Section on ICD
editHello, the sub-section referring to ICD in the part talking about "classification" is confusing as it refers to both ICD-10 and ICD-11 as "The most recent version of that document". These statements can not both be true can they? It may be worth clarifying what is meant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwatts2 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Pwatts2: Changed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
In the news
edit“Historically the term ‘sex addiction’ has been used by white males to absolve themselves from personal and legal responsibility for their behaviors,” one expert said. “It is often used as an excuse to pathologize misogyny.”
— NBC News, 'Sex addiction' isn't an actual disorder, but white men often get excused by using it, experts say
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hotpine: Regarding Apryl Alexander, an associate professor at the University of Denver, provides no primary source information, therefore it cannot be verified
, that's not what WP:VER means. We do not have to second guess associate professors. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu: I wasn't referring to WP:VER. I was referring to the fact that it's a bad source. You can't just write whatever you want, and then pat yourself on the back because it appears in a (bad) secondary source somewhere. The source shows clear bias, and my point was that the source doesn't provide any primary sources to demonstrate that it's correct despite the appearance of bias. In the absence of any information from sources biased in other directions, the reader isn't being provided a balanced and neutral POV, and so it wouldn't serve their interests to leave the article as-is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotpine (talk • contribs)
- Right, we are not "unbiased", but we have a WP:GOODBIAS. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for spamming my talk page, I guess. According to the "yes, we are biased" content you posted there, sources should essentially be scientific. One biased scientist talking out of their butt, and being quoted in a biased article, is not a reputable scientific source. If you can find a scientific journal dumb enough to publish their words verbatim, then great, we can quote and cite that instead. Until then, this is biased, pure and simple, and not in the WP:GOODBIAS way. It's just as bad as homeopathy and the other pseudosciences listed there. Hotpine (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Belated reply: it is not a medical claim, not even a scientific claim. Maybe it would pertain to law science. So, WP:MEDRS does not apply to it, nor is a scientific paper required for it. It is just a journalist quoting a professor about an often-used defense for white male felons. It's not rocket science to notice that such defense was often used, especially since the professor is specialized in forensic psychology, and we may presume she knows what she is speaking about without having need of peer review.
- It's not even a statement that sex addiction does not exist, only that those people have pleaded often to be sex addicts. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Effects
editWhat are negative effects of sexual addiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seriousnes (talk • contribs) 22:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- We don't know if sexual addiction even exists. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Dr. Donald Hilton
editCan we include dr Hilton here Jm33746 (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- AFAIK he is a neurosurgeon. His area of expertise does not include sexual "addiction". You are gently reminded to obey WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- And Hilton is an anti-pornography activist, i.e. he wants to ban all pornography, even when consumed with moderation. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)