Talk:Macrophilia

Mind the language

“Recently, however, this fetish has been more widely accepted with others, with genre crossover among fetishists known as "furries".” — this line implies that all anthropomorphic fans are fetishists, which is by far not true. I recommend rephrasing this sentence (would do it myself but I don’t have enough inspiration today, sorry).

Other than this, I’ll go and fix all the capital letters. This isn’t XVIII Century English :P -- Ralesk 16:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arright, I eventually went and rephrased a couple things. Take a look. Ta -- Ralesk 16:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Major changes planned.

As an FYI, I've plans to update and revamp this page into something more usable. Thanks to Ralesk for laying down the groundwork, but it needs to be more accessible to those who are not Macrophiles and involved in the online sizechange communities, and less bewildering or offputting to those who are. I also plan to make it more comprehensive and, well, encyclopedic. It's an important topic, as there are a surprising number of macrophiles out there, and it's a strange, poorly understood paraphilia in the wider world. Changes will go live probably on March 10th, 2005, and I'll copy over the original article to the Talk page, in case someone feels it's a better representation of the topic and wishes to revert part or all of it.

• Its the 14th and there isn't any major revamp, Has this 'plan' been called off or something?

The male giants

I really would like to see something about the macrophiles who appreciates male giants. It is becoming something more common, there are groups as http://groups.yahoo.com/group/growth_industry that has too many members. Please, I really think that is necessary someone writes about it. The groups about male giants are always growing. Is it something relationated with the fathers of these kind of macrophiles? I guess there are diferences between the macrophiles who apreciates male giants and the other kind of macrophiles. Is good to remember that the women and the gays generally prefer tall men.

--D.Lankow 02:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Well, I agree that someone should write about these gay groups, because this kind of macrophilia is growing. I myself own three english and one german macrophile group. It is a phenomenon, really. One group has more than 1400 members at least (since 2001). You know, I would do it myself, but my english is not that far, that I could write an analysis of the gay macrophilia, like this one we're discussing. But I will help to work on it, if someone will begin to write about these communities. --D.Lankow 02:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Giant lizards/creatures

I've seen a page claiming to be macrophilic that focused on giant fantasy creatures such as Godzilla. I don't know if there is a reptile-philia that would be related, besides the general "furry" category.

Giant lizards/creatures, Further elaboration

Note: I did not post the previous comment called "giant Lizards/creatures".

As a macrophiliac myself, and mainly a reptile-fond one, I must say it is not rare to find websites, communities, galleries, forums and others related to giant reptiles (and other creatures). In some cases it is not directly sexual-related, specially in persons who avoid to think in sexual topics, but still feel attracted to giant creatures; in this very moment I have two examples I remember: myself, when I was younger, and someone I met recently in a MUCK. In those cases --SPECIALLY when the macrophiliac avoids to relate his inclination with sexuality (or genitalia, in other cases)-- it is not gender specific; again I take myself and other ones I know as examples, our preference is not gender specific, and could also fantasy on completely genderless creatures (with absolute null involvement of genitals in a fantasy; or in other cases, without the involvement of the larger creature's ones). My apologies if my way to explain this sounds too rough, but I try to be direct. I think it is almost unavoidable to write on this topic and not be biased. If I wrote it, I could have been very biased towards the interest in larger creatures, without giving importance to gender, and not mentioning macrophilia towards humans (which I think, perhaps is the most common, who knows; I have not been in human-macrophile communities, ever).

I might write a long text about what I have observed on this matter during the last four years, hoping to be wikified and NPOVed by peers. I am a very observative and curious person, I'm constantly asking about what I'm interested in, and perhaps my point of view could help make this article more complete.

I'd deeply appreciate answers. I didn't want to directly edit the article as it has become more complete and encyclopedic-looking, so I prefer to put my thoughts on the discussion and see what can be done. In this last line I insist: I'm mainly a non-human macrophile (and was a completely non-human macrophile for most of my life but the last year), and I have been gathering information --by living it myself and observing others-- for years. I don't know much about the human-oriented dimension of macrophilia, except for the snapshot idea which website's portraits and group's introductions in yahoo can give. That's all. Take great care, and have a happy wikipedieing.

--Pentalis 05:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In a bit of an answer and a bit of discussion as of the post above, as it is one of the things we are scheduled to hit on, I find Pentalis's point of view to be predominantly true. I have met a lot of fellow macrophiles who are actually turned off by the mentioning of more sexual situations involving giants, or are indifferent or only mildly biased towards sexual situations with giants. I myself consider myself a macrofurry/macroscaly, (the, I guess "proper" way of identifing everyone from dragon lovers to godzilla lovers. Reptiles mythically or not, in other words.) and I only know a little about human macrophilia, having little to no experience in this fields. However in both fields what little I have found is that sexual situations do exist, which is why they are here. I recognize, Pentalis, that you were not stating that any of this mentioned here was false, but simply there was another side, but I wished to clarify that for anyone else. However Pentalis also brings up a good point in that Macrofurry, which at the moment is a wikipage all of it's own is technically a subgroup of macrophilia. So I personally would love to see the two pages combined in some form, as I, as one of the contributors to the macrofurry wiki, myself have ended up crossing over a lot of information already stated here, and this wiki states that macrofurries exist as well, without much further elaboration. As a relative new comer here I'm not sure how to "officially" go about a poll/vote for weather or not the Macrofurry and Macrophilia pages should be combined, however I would like to make it an open proposal for all who read this discussion page. --Galactor213 8:00 16 Feb 2006

Ok, I put the merge tag in Macrofurry article, and a post in the talk page. If nobody answers I think I'm going to be bold and do it myself. Pentalis 13:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I, if you checked, am one of the major contributors to that page. And as it's foremost contributor I have authorized it too be moved here.--Galactor213 4:04 23 Feb 2006 (-5 GMT)

Coming on theirs own

"Interestingly enough, women who come to it on their own tend to be unusually tall (and assume a giantess role) or short (assuming a shrunken-woman role) in real life, or were so perceived during childhood or adolescence."

If anything, that is a a person's personal view and needs either a citation, or needs to be commented on that this is an unconfirmed trend. I have seen extremes of this (Tall Macrophiles (6'+), and normal sized/short macrophiles sharing both aspects of intrests) and proof is baddly needed less it be deleted. Further more. the term 'coming to it on their own' is very vague. Especially about in terms of what age (post/pre puberity or during puberity) where most of growth happens in a human body

I am not saying this is incorrect, (being a 6'4 macrophile myself and knowing taller ones) But it needs to be cleaned up.

I have heard of this before, but as is, needs to be edited so it doesn't sound like it is fact with out proper citation. (I would love to hear where that information is coming from.)

Sources

I think the main problem with this right now is complete lack of sources. As in, both on the article and in the rest of the web... I mean, the one or t two sources we have (introduction to Macrophilia by Samuel Ramses for example) are either made by macrophiles or posted on marophilia websites. Outside of that I can't find any reliable sources involved with macrophilia at all. It definitely exists, and it definitely needs to be put here, but I'm afraid it will be deleted if we can't source it quickly. Galactor213 00:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no Scholar peer-reviewed research about Macrophilia that I could cite (except an unreadable PDF about crush freaks, which perhaps wasn't peer reviewed after all). And referencing a website made by macrophiles is ok, Lavadomefive has existed for many years and it is an acceptable source; as much as it is referencing a website made by medics to give information about medicine. *Cough* but I agree that there's this problem with lack of sources to reference... there's not much that could be done about it. Still, in the worst case this article won't be deleted, it might be trimmed down, for the worse of readers who will have to go and research themselves to find their answers, but never deleted, that would be stupid, there IS references for the basic points this article makes, and it is overwhelmingly obvious that macrophilia exists, and that there's furry macrophiles too. We might not have as many references like the article about "pwn", but go to any search engine, write "GTS" or "macrophilia" or "macro furry" and see how your screen floods. Don't you agree?  :) Pentalis 12:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so I might be exaggerating when I say deleted, but still. It's a major problem with this article. I think it, besides maybe pictures and a bit of cleaning, is in a state where we could safely call it encyclopedic and not be too far from the truth if it weren't for the source issue. So I guess this is just a call in general to any macrophiles out there, send in your references. We kinda need them. I will be much ablidged. Galactor213 03:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Some form of Macrophilia no doubt exists but I'm not sure it does in the context expressed here. I'm going to look around for some sources. If I can't find any and no one else cites some I'm going to trim this article down to a stub. Also Marcophilia fan sites or message boards do not meet the criteria for self published sources under WP:RS and they are not verifiable. There is some more dissscussion about this issue on the Otherkin and Furry fandom article's talk pages. If a subject is too obscure or fringe to have any reliable sources the chances are it doesn't meet notability guidlines. Any help with sources would be appreciated. NeoFreak 15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

An initial source I've found to be integrated into the article soon:

• A Salon.com article with some commentary on Macrophilia by a clinical psychologist. [1] NeoFreak 16:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fairly minor point but pertains to sources: the following sentence sounds like weasel words to me: "Some people have started having macrophilia because of films with giant people or giant monsters." Is there a source on this or is it supposition? How do we know whether it is a cause, or that people who already had macrophilia saw the films and found an outlet for it? Erikpan 19:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.22.178 (talk)

Clean up

I have removed the unsourced material and assertions from the article. I also removed the external link from lavadome. The "introduction to macrophilia" by the supposed Samuel Ramses, "M.D., Ph.D" reads like a fan-written FAQ essay. This was obviously not written by a doctor some much a medical doctor with a Ph.D. to boot. The only place I could find this gentelmen's name anywhere was on sites that ripped off the "intro". No published works, no practice, no graduate work, no mention as a graduate or as an alumni of any medical school, nothing. If I could find this name on a more reliable source I would be better able to justify it's inclusion here but as it is there is no verifiability and this is not a reliable source.

I've also quoted the psycologist in the Salon article. I know that portion of the article has a rather negative tone but she was the only professional I could find commenting on the topic. I couldn't figure out a different way to frame the webmaster's response to this in a way that didn't just rip the quote out and preceed it with "dave the webmaster says:". If anyone can figure out a more eloquent or descriptive way of paraphrasing the guy I would really apprecite it. NeoFreak 19:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

... Kind of a LOT to cut out of the article isn't it? Out of the entire web you couldn't find anything that proves the difference between Furry/Human Macrophilia? I was tempted to revert this, but I wanted to see if a debate would solve it without harsh words being flung around, so here I am. I don't think this intensive of a clean up was neccesary, as it looks to me more like a mass deletion then a clean up. Weasel words and all that are fine to delete, but this is an article just like BDSM and other paraphilias that your going to be hard pressed to find a single reliable source for. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I was afraid someone was going to do this, hence the reason it's on the to do list. However I see this type of thing as rather counter productive. I apologize for my confrontive tone, but it's mildly insulting to see all of this hard work turn into a paragraph because someone doesn't think it exists... Galactor213 03:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree here with Galactor. Being a macro furry myself I think its doing a big injustice for you to be the say all of what belongs here and doesn't in the names of sourcing material. I think there should be a compromise in what is acceptable over what isn't. Maybe the article isn't sourced but most of the times people put in source tags rather then revert an article. I think if anything a vote or a compromise should be done here before someone takes it into their own power to revert an article that is meaningful and informative to those who may be curious to what macrophilia is all about. I'm sorry to if I'm sounding harsh but this seems a bit extreme and over the top to turn the article back into a stub. There was already a "Doesn't site sources" tag and you can very easily put "source needed" tags if you feel that the article isn't to snuff. But in no way is your solution to what you find the problem to this article to be a proper solution to it. A lot of people worked hard here, and unfortunatly I wasn't one of them as I came by wikipedia long after this listing was created. Its a work in progress. If you have problems with it talk about it here. Reverting an article to nothing is not the way to do it either. I am going to revert it back because your solution isn't right either. Can't just throw out peoples hard work because there aren't sources to reference things. Im a macrophile. I live with it everyday. Don't tell me that it doens't exist because there aren't some websites out there saying it does. Put in sources needed tags in the parts you feel aren't to snuff and thats more then a fair compromise. This is not right what you did here NeoFreak. Its appreciated you are trying to help but this isn't how to do it. This sexual intrest is real to many people. It may be just some wikipedia listing to you but its a way of life to those who are in to it and I don't think you were very fair here at all. Next time take a vote or offer alternatives before you take control of a situation that could have been resolved in a more reasonable manor. Wikipedia is for everyone and that includes a section like this. This is a work in progress and unfortunatly no there aren't a lot of sources on this intrest as well I guess it just isn't important enough to research as it doesn't make a difference in life but it is real and everything said (which I didn't add to by the way) is very real and true. Sorry can't source it. You just gotta live it I guess to understand. PantheraLeo 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't want to step on people's emotions here but the fact is that my edit (which I'm going to restore) was within the rules their and guidlines of wikipedia. I want to make clear that I never claimed Macrophilia to be nonexistant, if that were the case I would have nominated the article for deletion as a hoax. What I said is that while I have no doubt that it exists I'm not sure it does in the context and detail described by the original research in this article. There is no way to prove what is calimed in this article as it has no reliable sources. I added the reliable source that I found for the subject and reduced that article to a stub; this is the proper format for an article that has potential to grow and needs more sources and work done to it. Wikpedia has very specific and detailed rules and guildlines in place for a reason: this is an encyclopedia and people can't just add what they want to it. Wikipedia is also not a democracy and while I'm sure many interested parties would come here to vote for the inclusion of material that violates policy this is irrelevent. It is not my job to find sources for others work. Anyone who wants to add material as factual has the burden of finding the sources to bac their assertions. This is not being done here.

I didn't want to give the impression of a sudden and drastic edit (which it was) or a sneak attack. You are correct in that I should have used some templates befroe making the changes and given it some time. The reason I did not do this was the general lack of substantial edits in the recent past and the total lack of effort to ever find reliable sources. I'm sorry I did not give more than a couple days warning but the fact remains that all the edits are kosher.

I fully support the expansion of this article as I feel that it deserves inclusion into the encyclopedia and would be more than willing to help find sources or doing other editing work. Please review wikipedia policy and guildlines before making an more reversion of my edits. I have put alot of time into understanding these before making my edits to ensure that I am doing both the encyclopedia and its articles justice, please do the same. "Living it" is not an acceptable reason to include unsourced original research and is a POV concern if anything. NeoFreak 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you are wrong here. You are just a deletionist who thinks they are going remove all things that are wrong about wikipedia in your opinion hidding behind a few guidelines that you can use to back your moves. But there are many many many pages that have unsourced information and they are not turned into stubs like this. Im sorry but if we have to take it higher up then we will. You are being a hypocrate here thinking you can come in and change things due to your own personal views and then using a few links to show why you can do that. Just because its not on the internet that means its not acceptable? That is ridiculous and even you know that. This is something that a lot of people put hard work into and there is no way that you should be the say all because of some clause saying not enough research is here. You gave a few days and then do it? Thats ridiculous. There are some pages with much more vital information then this that have source needed tags for years that you don't seem to be focusing on. You are coming off like nothing more then a bully here thinking that they are going to turn this into what they feel wikipedia should be. Im not going to get into a fight over who is right and wrong but there are many people here who have been around on wikipedia a lot longer then you who think your actions were rash, harsh and ridiculous. If you want to improve the article add to it. There is no way stubbing an article to meet YOUR standards that you are going to pull out links to back on wikipedia policy are going to stand. Add tags to what you want sourced and hopefully people can find it. Don't stub something as that is not acceptable when so much was put into this article. You say you are all for fixing this article yet you can't wait to remove it. Sorry you still have not come up with a compromise that all are happy with here. Until you do there is no way an article should be stubbed. So please stop stubbing it as it is not going to stick. You want to talk about this do so. Stop stubbing the article and actually talk. You are not the say all on what goes on here. You can pull all the links to back your actions that you want. I can show you many a page that had tags that say site sources and have for years and everyone is alright with it. Stop pushing your views on what you feel wikipedia should be just because you read somewhere thats how it should be. You are a deletionist and not helping to expand Wikipedia but trying to kill it. And its wrong. PantheraLeo 17:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I don't even now where to start with that. I'm sorry your feelings got hurt but personal attacks and "you're a bully for shrinking one of my favorite articles" is not really an argument against me cleaning out this artilce. I don't recall insulting you at any point and would appreciate it if you refrained from doing so. Thanks.

As for "just throwing in a few links" to justify my actions...well those links are policy. That might not mean alot to you but it means alot to most of the other editors around here. Thery are the framework in which this encyclopdia is built and trust me, they matter. Also, other pages that don't meet policy don't justify other violations, this should be obvious. I know it may appear that I'm "picking on" this one because you think I have a problem with it at some personal level (if that were the case I'd be over at the pedo pages) but I don't and I can't be everywhere at once. I'd also like to remind you that these are not my standards, they are wikipedia's standards.

This article has been around for almost three years and you want to know how many reliable sources it cited? ZERO. The only source this article ever got was one that I added so please don't accuse me of bad faith like you've been doing. I don't appreciate it. If you would like to restore this material then by all means do so, if you can cite them. That's your responibilty as the editor that wants to include it. Period. If you don't like the fact that you actually have to source statements you put into the encyclopeida then either work to change that policy or try working on a private wiki or webpage. I will not get into an edit war with you but if you want to "take it to a higher level" whatever it is you think that is, than that's fine, just don't waste my time. Please review WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR first: You're not going to win, you are in the wrong. If you want me to help you find more sources I will, I have no problem with that. NeoFreak 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Temper temper NeoFreak. Strike a nerve with you did I? I am sorry about that. Honestly you seem like a nice guy and you mean well but You have to learn to respect others here and not be the say all on everything as if you are going to be the enforcer of all policies. Boy you must really want to be an admin badly. :) But please do not threaten an edit war as I know full well that IS against wikipedia policy to threaten that and I really hope others don't have to be brought in to monitor this as it should never come to that. You are unwilling to compromise as is common policy here to do so. You have not put any cite source tags in, you come marching in here throwing out links (which I read fully by the way and still don't see what gives you any right to stub an article without giving warning, ways to work it better and taking into respect the nature of the subject that there is very little sources out there on.)

Please go to the article God and revert it back to stub and tell them that not enough references to prove existance are there. See what type of reaction you get to that. You are not going to win because you will find that your basis are nonsensical. Keep finding things all you want to prove that you can do whatever you want. But the truth of the matter is that you can't just throw links out and back what you are doing. The policies do not give you the right to make an article how you see fit. Believe me, I read the policies quite well. The things you are throwing out there are not at all rational for your behavior. You are really wrong in this and I know the policy quite well. I read it over many times. First of all you can't stub something when you have offered nothing to help improve the article. You search the whole internet and then decide that one thing that you put there, which is silly by the way, is all that is worthy of being here, when people who are macrophiles and live it tell you that they are experiencing it and you decide thats not good and throw out links to back your nonsensical changes. Whatever man. If I lose so be it, you will win and then what? You go back to ruining things for everyone else because you claim the rules say so? Wow you really are going to make a difference in the lives of so many here with this. Give him an award now everyone. Hes really making this place a joy to be. You want everything proven to a tee or it can't be on a page? What proof? You don't believe macrophilia exists or that the statements here aren't important and honest statements by those who have edited here? Ok put in some tags saying so and things will be found. You are doing it backwards removing everything and not giving people a chance to read what is out there and see that while no there are no sources it is what all those who live it (which are sources in themselves.. I think people who live macrophilia everyday are more vital then some doctor who does a case study) know to be the case. But you want some doctor to say it in a case study that will NEVER be done. Why would a doctor invest in researching a sexual fetish? It makes no sense for them to do so. So this article will never be more then a stub by your interpretations of the rules. Its really just not right or fair what you are doing and Im glad to have at least said "No. You can't just do this like that."

Im glad to have fought for something important for people to know. Your version of this article offers nothing of substance at all for people interested in it. There may be no references ever that show up on this subject matter. And as big as the internet is that is going to be the case for many items out there. The internet is not the end all on subject matter. Go to any of the sites that talk about this subject and see the same themes over and over. Do you know anything at all about macrophilia to even be talking about what belongs here or not? We can revert this everyday. I don't mind. This is an important subject for people to understand and yeah we can work things out to make the article better. Add some source needed tags and talk about what improvements you would like. But I have read enough of all the policies you listed to know that your solution is not proper either.

Your solution is too extreme and Im offering ways so all are happy. You just want to be an admin one day and make fun of the fact that I edited a typo. Wow big man you are. Lets stick to the facts not your buracracy. You want to get stuck in red tape or truly make this a section that people can come to to learn about macro? If there are references needed put the tags in that say so. The only thing you have accomplished is to make a complete disservice to this page and how un informative it now is to anyone who wants to understand what macro human giants and macro furries are all about. I may lose this because a) I don't plan to keep reverting it. I have better things to do with my time as hard as that is to believe and b) If someone is going to be that techincal on the rules and search for every statement they can find to back their moves there is nothing I can do on that as I will assure you now I have NO intention of searching every rule to find why what you are doing is wrong. I just am glad to have this all here in writing and hopefully one day things will be right here in the way they should be. Im not going to revert it again as you will just keep changing it back like the bully you are. So congrats. You win even after all I said. I just have no patience to get into an edit war with you. Macro not being here properly will not change the way those into it live it everyday or change the fact that it exists. Its sad people like you do ruin what could be great about Wikipedia. Very sad indeed. That is all I have to say. You can bash or comment or whatever to me. There will be no reply on this as you are not worth commenting to. I said all I have to on this and hope people will fight for this as well to put a stop to people like you who hide behind rules and personal feelings on interpretations of rules that were never meant to be used like this in this case. Good work though. Heres your trophy for being a great wikipedian. NOT! PantheraLeo 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Three things. One: I don't recall making fun of you editing a typo. If you are refering to my own typo/homonym fix than you've misinterpreted some self-depreciating humor. Two: I'm not challenging Macrophilia, I'm just contesting the appropriateness of this article's contents. Don't confuse the two. Three: There was a sources needed tag on this page before I found it.

I'm sorry this didn't end on a happier note, I hope that you can spend all this energy you have on the topic at a more approprite place. Try wikifur or one of the million pages out there devoted to this sort of thing. NeoFreak 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Woah woah woah... see, this is precisely why I thought debate would be good to this sort of thing... I knew someone would get upset. I accept your apology Neo, and I apologize myself for being a little harsh on you. Just a bit of a shock is all, and you apologized for it being a bit sudden. That being said, I still think that the original article was better then this. It was in the guidelines for you to change this, but I think where you and I differ is I am an inclusionist, while your a deletionist.. I think that conciseness comes after you have gotten decent information and sources. However something has to be done about this article, and I think either it should go to a mediation committee, or we should attempt a compromise of sorts. Your choice, as otherwise this article isn't going to get better then it's current rather sorry, but precise, state. Galactor213 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You and I are in total agreement, a real consensus on content can only come with decent information and sources available. I'm not sure what you want mediated. You want to include unsourced, unverifiable information and the POV of some editors for the sake of having a more "meaty" article? I don't want that information included because it violates policy, is potentially inaccurate and more than likely not representative? What is you're argument? That this article should be an exception under WP:IAR? Don't let me give you the impression that I'm being overly curt, it's just the end of a long day, my questions to you are honest and in good faith. NeoFreak 22:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It was merely an idea to get mediated, as obviously this arguement, while small in number of people, has randomly gotten pretty heated unnecessarily (which I accept partial blame for). Regardless, it may be against public policy to have unsourced things, but in a way, yes, I think paraphilias should have an exception to that, as true reliable sources are few and far between, BUT there is a lot of unreliable sources that distinctably describe all of the different aspects rather well and unencyclopedically. Granted, they are biased, but as you've found yourself, even the "reliable" sources are rather POV... paraphilias are seen as defects and strange by most people still. And while I don't blame them, and I don't blame you of thinking this way, it makes making something encyclopedic rather hard. You see my conundrum then as I too wanted to make it as reliable and NPOV as possible, but as you can see now, that leaves this article in a rather sorry state. THAT is my arguement, and I apologize for not making that clearer to you before, and causing all this rambling. From here however, I think we do need to come to a consensus. Flesh out this article a bit with facts that we can back up, regardless of the "reliability" of sources, while cutting out the proposertous claims and total nonsense. I know that sounds like "cheating" and just doing it to make it look good, but I do think thats for the best with something as odd as this page is. Thoughts would be welcome, but I advise everyone to remain civil....

Galactor213 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing random about this spat. PantheraLeo got upset because I cut down a large portion of an article that he has a conflict of interest and personal investment in. I get irritated when people try to circumvent policy because of their own self interest and soapboxing.

Paraphilia articles can be very well sourced (Pedophilia, Zoophilia). If a subject is so obscure as to have no sources than maybe it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. With the circles I travel in it is pretty hard for me to be shocked, disturbed or offended any more, believe me. I have no doubt that a form of Macrophilia exists and contrary to your impression I could not care less about what it is adults do to each other in the bedroom, at conventions, parties, etc. I do care about this encyclopeida. I'm all for adding to this article but doing so "regardless of reliablility" of sources is not acceptable. I know that some Macrophilia material was covered in Bizzare magazine and I'll try to find some sources there. In the mean time please only add material to this article that conforms to policy. If you have any questions for me in particular plewase feel free to drop me a line at my talk page and I'll do what I can to help. Cheers. NeoFreak 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The subject is NOT obscure. That is one of the few things that I don't agree with you. There is a very large community, both of human and furry macrophiles who would argue with you there. The reason that it hasn't been studied is A) it is an odd paraphilia that keeps to itself mostly, and B) It, unlike zoophilia or pedophilia, is not considered a dangerous or media friendly fetish. Zoophilia is considered disgusting to most people, and thus gets press coverage (and thus physician report on it), and it's obvious while pedophilia gets coverage. It just seems to me that you are stating one thing and yet doing another. I think the policy for Wikipedia SHOULD be to give information when it is wanted. It is obviously wanted, as you have seen by the harsh reaction you've been given after changing this, and this page IS linked to from places like wikifur as well as other giantess websites, fur and human a like. The groups are there that want to know about this, and I figure it's an obligation to give it too them. It's a shame no physicians look at this, it's a shame that they're are no unbiased opinions about this. However I do believe that if you are allowing something like Helen Friedman's article in here (which by the way, it's rather fishy that that you just happened to be the creator of that article the same moment that you changed this one.) then I think it's only fair that you allow at least one member of the paraphilia's article in here. It will be NPOV then, due to two differing viewpoints on the subject. Regardless, as I know I haven't swayed you, I put a request for comment in, as this obviously is not going to resolve itself simply by consensus, as I don't think either of us are willing to do it. I want one thing, and you want what seems to be the exact opposite of that, and we both have valid points. Galactor213 23:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I created the Friedman article after I found her and then researched her as a source for this article. I was considering asking for an outside opinion as well so I will wait until that request is taken up. I honestly think all I've done here is bring this article inline with policy but I understand why some people with a personal interest with the subject might take offense. NeoFreak 13:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC

In the jist of it, the controversy comes between inclusionism and deletionism. Myself, and PantheraLeo believe that the article was better before Neofreak edited it (that version, by the way, can be found Here). It had more information, and was the work of a good number of macrophiles for a long time. However, Neofreak argues, and rightly so, that the article lacked a lot of sources, and the sources that were there were rather sketchy at best. Now, this might seem to be a cut and dry case of NPOV or lack of verifiability, however as it stands, all of the former information (most of which being furry macrophilia) is verifiabile in it's existance, but not so much more then that. There are plenty of sites devoted to it, but not many medical reports from physicians on the paraphilia itself, and the ones that do exist are arguably NPOV as well, as the community as a whole downright denies it. All being said, the thing has gotten a bit nasty, with people vandalizing it in retribution, and Neofreak and PantheraLeo both getting somewhat pissy at each other (see the arguement above for that).
What we need:

• Mediator on what to do next. Is it better as it is, a stub with very little specific information, but well sourced; or as it was, with a lot of information, but not many sources citing it.
• Source finder. This article, weither or not it is found to be better as it is or reverted back to it's former state, is in a desperate need of reliable sources. If more sources were found, I think the whole arguement would be unneccesary.

Thank you. Galactor213 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I support Galactor213 in his assesment that we need proper mediation here to fix a situation that has gone from bad to much worse due to someones trying to fix it in their vision and strict interpretation of the rules. I hope that this page can be restored to its previous version which very few had any problem with in the first place and that proper mediation can help find a solution that all are happy with. This is not one persons page to edit, but everyone's to and lets not take the power away from the people who make Wikipedia what it is. Thanks and I hope that something can be done here so all sides are happy and this listing gets the proper representation it deserves on Wikipedia. PantheraLeo 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice speech. I suggest everyone read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR one last time before any formal requests are made. If at that point either of you still feel like we need a mediation then fine, I'm willing to devote some time to soothing feelings here. Remember though that mediation is not really a place to debate content or policy so much as to resolve general disputes. I'm not going to compromise on policy because it is, after all, policy. You want it, you need to source it, period. Once I see the "disputes to be resolved" in the request I'll be better able to help you two out here. NeoFreak 14:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am coming here via Rfc. Ughhhh although I found the old version informative, it is totally in violation of WP:V. I was about to nominate the whole page for deletion (AfD) when I noticed the one refference wasn't working and I couldn't find anything on the web except blogs and various macro sites. Remidied that.

So, via WP:V, and WP:RS, ... I'd say any fact not contained in that Salon article shouldn't be put in the articleSethie 04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of an AfD nom as well until I fished around and found the Salon article. With the single reliable source and the fact that it is obvious that some kind of "Marcophilia" does exist this gave me enough reason not to do so. Thanks for your time. NeoFreak 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I know when common consensus is against me, and right now is that time. You've gone through my little hoops Neofreak, and for that I thank you, I apologize for making this a debacle and you've been more then understanding. While I don't agree with the current revision, I'm not going to argue it further as your right, it wasn't well sourced. Rather then that, all has been said already. The article stays as is, I'll update the to-do list accordingly. Galactor213 04:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

The only analytical study cited, in a paragraph as large as the intro is also a depreciating and dismissing one. With no contrasting opinions present I would opt to omit or shorten the phrase or at least provide counter example studies. Otherwise the neutrality of the article could be disputed

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.17.241.239 (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Please add new additions to the talk page at the bottom. Yes, I agree that it sucks that the only health/medical opinion we can find in a reliable source is rather dismissive. Wether or not this position is justified is not our place to decide, as editors we need to find and source relavent and reliable material, the interpretation of the facts should be up to the reader. I am hoping some other sources turn up but as of right now the external links section is pretty expansive for a stub and they're all very pro-macrophilia community websites. NeoFreak 17:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must agree that with the only source provided being the one currently shown, the Helen Friedman paper, the article is not NPOV (not due to the paper in itself, but rather the omission of any counter points). As such, I think it is misleading to a reader to see what is quite clearly disputed as the ONLY 'opinion' presented (be it 'professional' or not). I would move that this be removed completely, even if it does mean shortening an already short article.

On a similar note, I'm inclined to make an argument towards the whole unsourced statement conflict. I understand that original research is to be avoided, and I realize the reasons for doing so. However, I think that if evidence is blatantly obvious, discretion can be applied. The article on humans should not require a thesis to be published before being able to state that humans generally have two arms. Similarly, I think that if something as evident as certain trends in Macrophilia are almost universally evident, they could be included, if done so with the gentlest of care.

If, for example, one says, "it is common for" when it is blatantly is, noting that there are exceptions and so forth, then I think it should be included. The alternative is an article two paragraphs long comprised of five and six word sentences, which, ultimately, is not very informative. The current opening paragraph seems as if it were lifted from wiktionary, it is so brief and undetailed. Surely it would be better to inform people of at least some common themes of Macrophilia, even if they aren't entirely universal, than to leave people completely bewildered by an article with little to no detail. Frankly, the old article should have, in my opinion, been edited, not deleted and replaced 58.178.125.177 14:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the Salon source is the only source that meets WP:RS. There was a counter point made in the article by a macrophile it was just rather weak when held up against Freidmen's. We can't say "this or that" is a common theme unless it is asserted in a reliable source. Otherwise we are going to have conflicting opinions of various editors based upon unreliable sources and original research. There is no reason to remove the Salon source and if we did then we would have no sources at all. I understand that the only source is rather negative but until something esle is found then that is all we have and I'm not going to agree to its removal just because it's not flattering. NeoFreak 20:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but do we really need a section on the causes of macrophilia? Such claims have always been highly debatable, and during a quick check, I didn't see any other fetish articles carrying the same information - even short acticles lacking sources. Can we remove it on the grounds that, in addition to disparaging, it's also pointless? 66.189.159.162 18:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation:The West Australian (Perth), December 29, 2006 Friday, METRO, FEATURES; Pg. 5, 156 words, PAM BROWN

I read this review of a program, this could be a citation for something:

"Copyright 2006 West Australian Newspapers Limited All Rights Reserved The West Australian (Perth)

December 29, 2006 Friday METRO

SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 5

LENGTH: 156 words

HEADLINE: PAY TV

BYLINE: PAM BROWN

BODY:

Mancrushers, c&i, Saturday, 9.30pm (EST)

Macrophilia is not an obsession with furry Australian marsupials, it is a fetish based on giantism and it takes some seriously strange forms.

The desire for domination by a giant is said to draw on the desire of some men and women to be conquered.

But some people take it to bizarre levels. One man makes model cities only to see them trampled by a giantess. Other men pay handsomely to have women literally walk all over them.

A whole sub-culture has emerged serving the needs of macrophiliacs, including Amazonian conventions."

Unfortunately I cannot find head nor tails of the television program that s being described. Can someone just use the article? I used lexisnexis. Also, holy crap lets archive this talk page. Lotusduck 17:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

New Reference

I've reverted some seemingly unsourced material from the page per WP:ATT. I also noticed that there was a ref added to the bottom of the page, a "Channel 4 documentry". I'm not sure what portions of the reverted material are supposed to be supported by this reference and where we can find it. If this is a documentery on "Macrophilia" that would be great but if not we might be in danger of violating WP:SYN. Could I get some more info on the ref please? NeoFreak 21:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Source?

I searched around and found this essay on writing.com that had a number of links and a basic description of the thing itself. I know the essay will probably be cited as original research, but honestly if this doesn't get more sources soon I may ask this to be deleted, as at the moment the article is not only insultingly one sided (and completely wrong in my humble opinion) but also not useable in any sense of the word. Galactor213 00:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

New Source?

I found this with Google Scholar. It focuses specifically on crush fetishism, but offers some commentary over the specific topic of macrophilia.

http://www.janushead.org/7-1/Biles.pdf

Relevance of nonsexual mentions of giants?

user:Fuzzk1 has added a substantial list of mentions in popular culture of giants. It is not at all clear, however, which if any of those mentions are actually macrophilic. That is, although there was a giant (macro-) involved, there is no indication that a sexual interest (-philia) was involved. It is therefore not clear to me whether those mentions should be on the page.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this list is irrelevant. No references that the items are related to macrophilia. Removed. - Altenmann >t 15:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuzzk1: You have re-added the same material, which still does not appear to be relevant to this particular page. On Wikipedia, it is considered appropriate to discuss contested material before re-adding it. I have no opposition to the list you have created; it just doesn't belong here. If there does not already exist a page for nonsexual references to giants/giantesses in popular culture, you can certainly create one. But this page is specifically for the sexual interest in such persons/fantasies.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with adding material on Macrophilia.

Hello, my name on Wikipedia is Fuzzk1 but my real name is Kevin. I have received a message from James Cantor stating that their has been a disagreement with the material I have added for Marcophilia page from several people. I have simply added mainstream film and television shows pertaining to this fetish and I even added the names of the actress ( correct names I may add) who portrayed the giantess in the show along with the proper years of when both the film, t.v. episode appeared. These are simple films from Beetlejuice, Alice In Wonderland and Attack Of The 50 Foot Woman. Their was nothing offense or anything disrespectful that I put on that page, nor did I put any sexual pictures on there. I do not understand what the problem is considering the page did not have that much information about the fetish when it is indeed a popular fetish and I was simply adding material that contains it. If someone would be kind enough to explain what was wrong with the material I have added or why some has a desire to delete it when everything is accurate then please let me know. Thank you, Kevin 8/17/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzk1 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Following films and shows do have Macrophilia in them.

Reading James Cantor message I understand the rules and the guide lines, however I do have a Macrophilia fetish which I am proud of and the material that I have listed does contain that fetish. Although films like Frtiz The Cat, Bride Of Chucky, Ernest Scared Stupid and Saturday The 14th Strike Back may not sound erotic it does deal with several scenes of woman picking up men who are smaller then them or turning into giantess which clearly makes them a giant and to some people they do find this erotic and were the early sings of people interested in this fetish. I hope Professor Cantor does think I am being rude or disrespectful and if thinks so I greatly apologize but while he does of a P.H.D. in sexuality this coming from someone who has the fetish and has seen all the material that I provided that pertain to this fetish. Beetlejuice (1988) may not be a porno film but it does have a scene where a shrunken Beeltejuice (played by Michale Keaton)is being picked up by Geena Davis and some people I myself included find Geena Davis attractive and think it would be erotic being picked up her in her hand. I am just simply adding material of films and shows that have scenes of woman picking people smaller then them or turning into giants. Thank you, 8/17/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzk1 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for respecting wikipedia rules and responding here. The major objection to your list is that "woman picking people smaller then them or turning into giants" is not macrophilia. In any case, what you are doing is unreferenced original research not allowed in wikipedia, see WP:NOR policy. You have to provide references to reliable sources (see WP:CITE) which confirm that particular films may serve as examples of macrophilia, even if you think it is very evident to you. - Altenmann >t 23:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I took Fuzzk1 (talk)'s list merely as an indication the topic is of broad interest, ranging from fairy tales to Harry Potter to socio-political works like Gulliver's Travels. The actual =philia suffix means affinity for, fascination with, or love for. Whilst I don't see a sexual component, I found the list interesting as a cultural reference.

In a neutral light, is there any objection to restoring his/her list, possibly with a qualifying statement? (I just read a Wikipedia article on Romeo and Juliet on screen that argues Lion King I & II are based on Sealed With a Kiss, itself based on Romeo and Juliet, the play. Somehow, Fuzzk1's addition seems less of a stretch.)

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting the article again, I believe the entire page is slanted. It reads:

Macrophilia refers to a sexual fantasy involving domination by giants, primarily giant women…

Technically, it's a fascination with giants. I'm not sure the 'primarily giant women' is appropriate. Yes, the referenced Salan article discusses their love for large women, but it doesn't follow that all macrophiliacs feel the same, nor do other sources mention this a preference for women. I'll change this phrase.

Best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WIGO?

Okay, folks, I'm getting really confused by what seems a moving target.

While working on a larger article on obsessions and fascinations (and love of, etc) I spot-edited both macrophilia and microphilia. While I believed the articles had over-the-top emphases on sexual aspects, I thought that was worked out. Now I find macrophilia gutted (leaving a reference to a silly essay) and microphilia altogether deleted.

What is going on? Is there some kind of ban or lockdown the rest of us should know about? Is there some kind of policing about the prurient aspects? Is there an arbitration or discussion page we can be pointed to? While I know and understand why two major recent contributions were removed, it would help to understand why genuinely useful information is being removed as well.

Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed a large chunk of unsourced material from this article as per Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. — Matt Crypto 17:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I figured that. It might have been a bit of overkill, but the author could of course put it on the talk page for discussion.

To clarify, my interest is not paraphilia, but philological, the words themselves and their meanings. I'm concerned that the article has been policed so thoroughly, that it's no longer useful.

Any thoughts? Any idea what happened to microphilia?

Thanks. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted by User:Altenmann on the grounds that "this disambig page does not disambiguate any wikipedia articles". — Matt Crypto 07:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable macrophiles

• Charles Baudelaire-proven by his poem La Géante ('The Giantess')¹

I removed the above entry-- one person's interpretation of a single poem proves nothing of the sort. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Better image requested

The image currently posted on this article used to demonstrate macrophilia (File:Giantesses magazine.jpg) doesn't seem to truly illustrate any giantess themes. It seems to illustrate domination more closely, and with that massive weapon she's holding as the only frame of reference, she almost appears to have been shrunk. It's almost the same size she is. I believe a better image would have some sort of frame of reference, like a giant woman walking through a city or in close proximity to a tiny man. 71.231.120.29 (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

http://karbo.deviantart.com/ is a prominent Macrophiliac artist with a few thousand followers and 8 million page views, whom liscenses all of their works as Creative Commons. I think one of their works would be most appropriate. I think I will add one. Feel free to revert, if any one disagrees. --Eaterjolly (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverted with rationale. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with your rationale. I'm sorry I'm a bit new to this forum as meantioned elsewhere you might have noticed. I uploaded the image to wikicommons with the description it originally had, incorrectly understanding that the description was for if the image was broken what it would say instead (as many older sites do). The image however is most definitely associated with macrophilia, if not for it's content then for it's author and the fictional universe it's set in (which both captions mention). The follow the source link attributed to the wikicommons file and it will confirm all this. --Eaterjolly (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That image (File:Naga and fairies by Karbo.png) is a random person's drawing of something that may very well be as described (characters from some story). However, articles are supposed to be encyclopedic descriptions of what is known about topics—not what people think about them, or have said about them (unless the people are notable experts on the topic). The image is not suitable for Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That first line would justify the rational if it were true, or atleast the part about the artist being random. While there is no reliable source accrediting their fame to macrophilia, they accredit their own work to macrophilia and are indeed relatively famous with 8 million page views. I'm not sure what you're requesting when you make the assertion that they the article is intended to be an encyclopedic description, since it is my understanding that a portrait of a king on a biographical page seems more to serve as a form of visual reference or of examplification than of direct description. Though perhaps I can understand that page statistics or an artists claims, might not constitute a reliable source and that the observation that the image consists characters affirmative of the artists claims might constitute original research. Perhaps I should go to see if I can find book or peer-reviewed study, analysing the comic book world of felarya to determine if the giants in it's fiction are sexual enough to qualify paraphilia or if the comics audience is sexually motivated enough to in their reading to qualify as paraphiliacs. --Eaterjolly (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Gender wording

I realize that people want to be politically correct and say that this fetish could apply to both a giant woman or a giant man, but the vast majority of published sources only acknowledge this fetish in relation to a giant woman. None of the sources currently provided in this article mention giant men; they only mention giant women. To be consistent with Wikipedia's policies on verification and avoiding original research, this article should be worded in a way that mostly or entirely acknowledges this fetish as pertaining to giant women. 71.231.120.29 (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I can assure you the fetish is prevalent in relation to both giant men and giant women. Among the straight male community, there is obviously a large population that prefers giant women, but among homosexual and bisexual men (and on occasion, women) there is also a decent-sized population. If you're looking to get a better grasp of the nature of male giants in macrophilia, try www.coiledfist.com (this is a strikingly large male-giant macrophile community), and as others have stated, numerous yahoo groups aimed at the male giant macrophile population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.38.251 (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's non-existent within the homosexual and bisexual male community, I'm simply saying it's not acknowledged by third-party publications—which are the foundation of information on Wikipedia if you read the two policy pages I linked in my first post. 71.231.120.29 (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

I'd be grateful if there could be some explanation around the spellings Macro/Micro -phelia or -philia. Both seem to be used; "-philia" in the first half and "-phelia in the second half of the article - are they alternative spellings, please?

Advertising

Why does the article seem to be endorsing one woman's services and linking directly to her website? This article poses as neutral while exploiting the wiki for profit. If the wiki is non-commercial in nature, such links and endorsements should not be allowed.

90.157.234.124 (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely right: it was a quite blatant advert and gave undue prominence to one person among quite a few. Either one of these would be reason enough to delete that reference. I've done so, tidied the paragraph, and requested a citation ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The new image does not provide as good an example as the old one

This image would work on a page for mythological giants or something, but not here. The previous gave an image of the fetish in a SFW way. This has nothing to do with Macrophillia at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.249.96 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Gender Wording II

I have added sources that include the fetish applying to males, if this makes the above complainer happier. This fetish, just like every fetish, applies to women and men. Even if a majority applies to women, that does not mean men can't be viewed this way either. I've left messages for those who have edited this page otherwise and I've contacted admins over the issue after the edit war continued. One in particular has agreed with me, and suggested we discuss this here. If you have opinions you want to bring up, please place them here, otherwise I will contact the site admins again. --Sage94 (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I'm already planning to add information about male giants to the "Media Experience" section.--Sage94 (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The sad thing is, when you actually do a Google search on Macrophilia in Google Images, half or more of those images are of giant men. Those who claimed this was mostly female-oriented should do their research.--Sage94 (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Again With This

At this point, the user doing this should be blocked.--Sage94 (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Since they're editing anonymously, the only way to block them from editing this would be to lock down the article. To be honest, while it's vastly improved from the time when I started watching this article (and I believe I even suggested merging it), it still has a lot of the problems I initially noticed. Because of this, I'd think locking it before it becomes something more scholarly and less agenda-driven and advocating can't even be seriously considered. I wish the user who keeps doing the edits would make a username and join in the discussion, because they might have some valid points. It's not that I personally doubt that there are women with the fetish, but as far as I can see, the listed references have barely a mention of it, if at all. I saw that in one of your reversions from an edit, you state that there are plenty of women who have the fetish because you've personally seen a lot of evidence. Please understand, I'm not here to be a jerk, but this shows that you lack an understanding of what 'scholarly' means. Personal experience is not scholarly. In fact, you can be personally aware of something that's contrary to what has been studied and in the interests of being scholarly, you would still have to leave out that information until there's decent (up-to-standards) documentation. This isn't meant to be a slight against your pet subject. I myself have seen information that, due to my work with research, I disagree with. However, the current scholarly ideas do not support the research I have been involved in (yet?) and until something is published in a proper journal, I have to leave it be. In this instance, there appears to be a dearth of actual studies published in journals about this topic (again raising the question of noteworthiness - and again, it's not a slight, it's about scholarly criteria), but perhaps there are enough real references to warrant a mention. I kind of doubt that, but not enough to actually debate it again. Be aware, however, that if enough people were interested in this article, I would confidently wager that it would be merged into a broader topic as I previously suggested. Looking for some sort of legitimacy for the topic is not what you do with Wikipedia and if legitimacy is really what you want, you'll go about seeking it in the right ways. Advocate to behavioral and biological researchers, not to people looking for tested, reliable information. -- Pandarsson (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer it not be merged, however it would be nice if it were protected so that only registered users can edit it. That way, anyone who messes with it would be blocked immediately. Also, I don't know if your comment about who the fetish is aimed at is referring to my comment or his, but I can assure you that simply typing the word "macrophilia" into a Google image search engine will show that both women and men are subjected to it. The person editing this article is obviously doing so to exploit his own fetishes, using the argument that giant women are more referred to in macrophilia, but whether this is false or not (and it is), the entire article does not need to focus on that.--Sage94 (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, I have no doubt that there are also women with this fetish. But a Google search is not a reliable source. Please take a look at the following Wikipedia links: reliable sources, conflict of interest, core content policies, what Wikipedia is not, and notability. You are a very dedicated editor and I think you could be a good asset to Wikipedia, but you need to understand what's going wrong on this page. Check those out - they will help. -- Pandarsson (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fine, Google may not be a reliable source, but this user is adding one sided edits based purely on opinions. He/she can't prove themselves, and even by any chance it does refer to females more than males, that doesn't mean that the article should only refer to one group of people who feel this way while completely leaving out another group. An article based on facts should have all the facts. So, once again, this user has edited the page. I think it's fair to say that this page should now be protected so only registered users can edit it, because this is ridiculous.--Sage94 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The IP was right to revert you here and here. And regarding what you stated here, you are not a WP:Reliable source. You are violating the WP:Original research, WP:Undue weight and WP:Edit warring policies; read all of them to see what you are doing wrong on this matter. Wikipedia does not give "equal validity" to matters; we report what WP:Reliable sources state, and we give due weight to the majority. And since, from what I see after having come back to this article after months of having first encountered this article (I came back because of this edit you made elsewhere, which compelled me to look at your contributions), your inappropriate editing to this article has gone on long enough. I will now report this matter to the WP:Original research noticeboard because I don't put up with this type of thing (wholly inappropriate Wikipedia editing). I suggest you thoroughly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to do anything wrong, I'm just trying to make the article fair. i added 'eproctophilia' to that page because, as a paraphilia, I thought it belonged. It was a mistake, do not make me out as the bad person in this situation. I'm editing this article only to keep it fair.--Sage94 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

And I pointed out above what Wikipedia considers fair with regard to WP:Neutrality; read its Due and undue weight section and the subsections to that (Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity"). Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he's reading any of the links we're giving him. He'll continue completely missing the point until he does. Pandarsson (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I am, and the Due and undue weight section clearly states that "if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". The minority is not incredibly small, therefore equal validity can be put into question here. Therefore, I don't understand why this article can't have anything based on it. We can put that women are more subjected in this, but that does not mean men aren't. I may, however, be missing the point, but from my viewpoint, it seems that all of your links are only proving my point more.--Sage94 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong! Wikipedia does not give equal validity at all; the WP:Due weight policy makes that incredibly clear. We give most of our weight to what the significant majority states. And the significant majority of, or likely all, sources on the macrophilia topic do not extend the term macrophilia to male giants. Therefore, like WP:Due weight makes clear, we do not give male giants as much weight as we give female giants in this article and we do not give that aspect as much emphasis in the lead; it should not be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead whatsoever. More importantly, we go by what the sources state, per WP:Verifiability. If there are no WP:Reliable sources to support the material you want added, then you are out of luck. And as you should know by now, because it has been stated to you more than once, we also should not attribute sources to material when those sources do not support that material; attributing sources to material that the sources do not support is WP:Original research. Like I stated here, I have reverted you because the policies have been explained to you very well. If you cannot comprehend them, that is not my or anyone else's problem. Do not revert and violate the WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research policies again. If you do, whether as an IP, a WP:Sockpuppet or as Sage94, you will not like what follows. Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Listen you lot

Wikipedia isn't part of your Yahoo groups or *chans or whatever. Stop trying to push any of your myriad points of view, or insisting on compromises between your various egos. If you are unable to take a backseat to Wikipedia rules and guidelines, do the right thing and stay off. Jeez. 69.122.244.46 (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Should giantesses in fiction be a seperate ategory from giants in fiction?

I think this is one of those categories like witch that is gender specific. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not gender specific. If we want to follow wiki policy, then we'd have the majority of the article focus on whichever gender we want until there is PROOF which gender is more often viewed in this light. I know what wiki policy states, but fact is fact, and I can word it differently so that neither gender is focused on quite easily.--98.252.145.70 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Male Macrophilia

This article is not gender neutral. Although macrophilia is largely dominated by giantesses, this does not constitute that macrophilia as a whole is entirely giantess oriented. The article heavily implies the giantess aspect over the male giant aspect by using female pronouns at every turn. The article needs to be edited so it can accurately define the term "Macrophilia" and not just the Giantess fetish.

THIS ARTICLE IS A MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT

I have considerable fascination with Male Macrophilia and was hoping to learn more about it; hence the reason for my looking on Wikipedia. Alas, I am completely disappointed with the lack of a neutral-gender tone in this article. This article is a complete hatchet job and needs to be re-written or deleted altogether. -- Avazina, (Talk to me) 07:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Avazina, this matter was already addressed in the #Again With This section above. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state...with WP:Due weight; read that guideline and policy. We do not go by our personal opinions, or rather...we should not go by our personal opinions. And if you are any of the other editors who have tried to create false balance in this article, but are currently under a different username, do see that such tactics do not work. Acalamari already WP:Semi-protected this article once because of long-term disruption regarding people who refuse to adhere to what the sources state. I'm sure that he would have no issue with WP:Semi-protecting the article in that regard again, or WP:Full-protecting it. Flyer22 (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am truly curious now. How do you consider observable facts a "personal opinion" ? We can see that very few people actually bother to write about macrophilia, and the ones who do don't go beyond the most superficial bits, but that doesn't mean something doesn't exist. I wonder : do people with a paraphilia (other than paraphilias related to inanimate objects) stick with whatever gender they're attracted to ? Or do they, on the contrary, always stick with females ? If it's the former - if any serious source can support it's the former - then I can't imagine how you can pretend there aren't sources saying macrophilia can go both ways. A foot fetishist who likes women will like women's feet ; a foot fetishist who likes men will like men's feet. A leg fetishist who likes women will like women's legs ; a leg fetishist who likes men will like men's legs. A macrophiliac who likes women will like female giants ; a macrophiliac who likes men will like male giants. I don't even see the difficulty here. Heterosexual males are a majority in macro online, just like they are the main target of pornography, therefore most of the material we can find includes giantesses. But both women and gay men who have macrophilia like giant men. It's really as simple as that. Saying only women can be giants would be like saying only women can appear in porn, because most porn does focus on women. Worse, it'd mean the definition of porn on Wikipedia would be "the portrayal of women for the purpose of sexual arousal." Can you see how stupid it is now ? If you want evidence there are people who like male giants, I can send you millions of pictures and stories of giant men, there is enough material for me to send you ten per day until the day I die. Also out of curiosity, do you think the source below is worth mentionning ? https://drmarkgriffiths.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/havin-it-large-a-beginners-guide-to-macrophilia/ Michat2 (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Michat2 (talk · contribs), like I stated above, "We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state...with WP:Due weight; read that guideline and policy. We do not go by our personal opinions, or rather...we should not go by our personal opinions." If you are this IP, the same, of course, applies. That macrophilia can refer to male giants is mentioned in the article, but that macrophilia mostly concerns female giants should be noted in the WP:Lead and that aspect should get the most weight in the article; the WP:Due weight policy is clear about this. As for the WordPress.com source you cited above, that is not a WP:Reliable source. And any source that is not a WP:Reliable source should be removed from the article.

Grayfell, do you mind putting yet another sexual topic on your WP:Watchlist -- the Macrophilia article -- and helping out with it when you think you can? As you can see, there is continually a male vs. female matter going on at this article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And on a side note, Michat2, paraphilias are not as well documented in girls/women as they are in boys/men. Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You acknlowledge that men can be fantasized about, then what is the problem ? The definition of macrophilia shouldn't be "loving giant women" but "loving giant people with, de facto, an observed majority of macrophiliacs focusing on giant women in online communities". How is that hard ? I don't say to erase all form of mention to a female majority, just to ackowledge the existence of both ends of a spectrum whose existence is proved by million of pictures and simple common sense. Sexuality isn't defined as "sexual attraction between a man and a woman" even though it's a majority of the cases. Pornography isn't defined as "the portrayal of women for the purpose of sexual arousal." How... deeply stupid do you need to be to define macrophilia as "attraction towards giant women only" ?! It's not a "male vs female matter", it's simply people pointing you blatantly ignore all the facts and common sense because of the obvious lack of reliable sources on the matter, which is obvious as macrophilia is a niche paraphilia. Just state the facts as they are : macrophilia is the attraction towards giant people with an observable majority of female giants as most of the members of online communities are heterosexual males. It's deeply offending to see that the definition of your fetish denies the existence of 30% or so of people who have it, including you. Michat2 (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Michat2 (talk · contribs), the existence of both sides is acknowledged in the article. As for the rest of what I or you stated, you apparently aren't even trying to understand the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work. Therefore, I'm done replying to you on this matter. I've already pointed you to the WP:Reliable sources guideline and WP:Due weight policy. As for "the definition of [my] fetish"...I don't have a macrophilia fetish. And I'm not male, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Michat2: You provided a link to a blog which may or may not have correct information. At any rate, a blog is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Please do not use this talk page to express opinions unless changes based on reliable sources are being proposed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Jitenshasw (talk · contribs), regarding this and this, see above. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, not your personal opinions or personal experiences. Every time you guys do this, you will eventually be reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Taking a stand

I'm sorry, but the language is not at all inclusive.

I know some of you don't see the other side of the size community because you don't participate in it. You participate in your own little corner of that. Being a female macrophile who is pansexual, I find myself in many of the communities, GTS, gay GT sites, and of course F/f and M/f (SW related) websites. There are thousands, hundreds of thousands of us. I know, I sell to them. I'm an artist, I run a macrophile meetup group in NYC, I visit the many different communities online. We need to work on becoming more inclusive so that the community can actually grow.

Yes, I'm well aware there are more GTS fans than SW fans or GT fans, but that doesn't mean we don't exist or that there are only a few of us. The rest of us have partners too, people who go and google this shit. AND YOU'RE GIVING THE WRONG IDEA.

If you guys keep reverting the language, I swear I will spread the word about this shit. I got 10,000 followers combined on my DA, Tumblr, FA and Ekas. I can get the word out fast. I'm not trying to be aggressive, but you're hijacking an article for PRONOUNS. COME ON!!! I'm tired of not being able to be proud of my label. Macrophilia is part of my EVERYDAY life, as I'm sure it is to some of you. This article does not represent me, it is not me, so I changed it. THIS IS NOT AN OPINION. My macrophilia is a fact.

I literally changed NOTHING about the article except for changing Giantess to = "Giant person" or "Giant or Giantess". Read it. PLEASE STOP EXCLUDING US. Fucking for once in your damn lives actually listen to a woman instead of objectifying her. Jesus fucking christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitenshasw (talk • contribs)

Jitenshasw (talk · contribs), and now I see you've reverted again. That is WP:edit warring. Well, time to take action again. Your "taking a stand" is not compatible with Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• And I will continue to do so. One of 3 Wikipedia policies are to have a neutral point of view. I think maybe your article is not compatible with Wikipedia. How can I prove my point? Well you have a list of people on this talk page here saying they're disappointed and wish it was changed. Keeping it non-inclusive as it was is the opposite of a neutral point of view.

Let me take fun little snippets from the original writing. "While some fantasize about a giantess who is slightly taller than himself" OK, again, no penis here. A non-gender rewriting of this sentence and others like it would make this sentence actually true about macrophiles.

"The giantess usually eats/stomps men, though there are very rare instances where she will be seen eating women as well" SAYS WHO??? F/f is almost the majority of vore I see online. THIS IS OPINIONATED, CHANGE IT TO BE GENDER NEUTRAL SO THAT IT'S NOT A LIE.

I can go on, but I'm sure you get my point. I don't understand your reluctancy on changing this so that we can better protect and educate people around us on the topic. Changing pronouns to be genderless would be more inclusive. Seriously, girls like me thought we were fucked up, and we end up getting harassed by men because we feel we MUST play a GTS role to feel like we're part of the community. Our emotions and sexual desires have value and need to be respected, so I will continue to take a stand to fight for women and gay people in the community. Jitenshasw (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Jitenshasw (talk · contribs), you don't understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If you did, you wouldn't be posting with such commentary at this talk page. Wikipedia's idea of neutrality is different from the general public's idea of it, as is clear by its WP:Due weight section and the subsections for it. What you are doing is a WP:Valid violation of that policy. I've taken the matter to WP:ANI; a WP:Permalink for it is here. Make your case there, if you so desire. Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 (talk · contribs) I appreciate you bringing it up to an admin. I'm sure seeing this talk page is enough evidence to prove our point. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and I find the 'truths' on this page to be false in my case, and many other people that I've met online and/or in person with the fetish. There is a great misunderstanding because of pages like this. I meet other SW women like myself all the time who incorrectly state they are microphiles because they think macrophilia (by the wiki article) is the male perspective of the fantasy. Obviously that is not true, macrophilia is not a tiny man/giant woman fetish. I'm tired of the misinformation, and wish that citing of macrophilia was more gender neutral so the rest of us could feel like we have something accurate to point to. Changing pronouns to be genderless still makes sense for hetero male GTS fans reading the article, as well as everybody else! It does not change the actual content of the article at all, it just makes it more inclusive. I truly wish to nod my head along with my male counterparts when reading this Wiki page...because I'm a macrophile too!! This is a fact I've known since Kindergarten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitenshasw (talk • contribs) 23:29, 2 October 2015

@Jitenshasw: Please consider what would happen if the strategy outlined above ("THIS IS NOT AN OPINION. My macrophilia is a fact.") were applied at other articles. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources—rather than editors exchanging personal opinions, this talk page is a place for people to propose changes after providing a reliable source. There is no need to ping Flyer who is obviously watching this page, as am I. (You probably used five tildes for your signature; feel free to remove the "unsigned" stuff above and replace it with four tildes.) Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Jitenshasw (talk · contribs), we don't go by your "truths." And there are enough editors disputing the "truths" of others on this talk page because those "truths" are not backed up by any WP:Reliable sources. The fact is that macrophilia is mostly documented in men, especially heterosexual men, as made clear by sources on this topic. That macrophilia is predominantly a male paraphilia/fetish should be made clear in the lead (WP:Lead) and lower in the article, per WP:Due weight. More traditional encyclopedias also make the prevalence aspects of a topic clear if information on those aspects are available. This does not mean the minority aspects shouldn't be covered; but they certainly should not get equal weight, and the majority aspects should not be marginalized to achieve that "equal weight." Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Significant cuts

Drmies, regarding your significant cuts to the article... Yep, there are barely any good sources that cover this topic. The only good ones are a few media sources, unless the topic is covered by some decent books; and I don't mean in passing. This is why sexologist/psychologist James Cantor argued for redirecting it when commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macrophilia. I'm not sure that this topic is covered in the books listed in the "Further reading" section of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Flyer, the odd thing is that the Further reading list looked a hell of a lot better than the references I removed... Part of the problem was that many paragraphs weren't verified at all, and the writing was typically that of a fan (client? patient?). I didn't know it had been AfDed before and I don't really have an opinion, but I'll be glad to grow one if you like... Drmies (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Some more cutting. James Cantor had a point. There's an IP from Washington all over the history adding the bad stuff. The AfD was kind of a disaster. What we have now in terms of sources is a few newspaper articles and a book of doubtful quality that mentions it in two pages by chatting about it--I see no in-depth research anywhere. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

More common, but not always the case

Sure, I can agree that the sources (which is another issue altogether) claim the fetish is more common in males. However, I see no reason why we can't explain that while still being gender-neutral in certain contexts. The article does feel like it's excluding certain groups. For example, "Generally, interest differs between people, and gender depends on sexual orientation. They often enjoy feeling small and being abused, degraded, dominated, or eaten, and they may also view female giants as being powerful and dominating." This starts out good, noting that any gender can have the fetish. However, it quickly resorts to assuming giantesses for no reason. Nothing would be lost from the removal of "female". We are still acknowledging the male majority, so no false balance is created, but it no longer arbitrarily discriminates. Also, while I generally agree with Jit's premise, this is not the way to go about it. Threats are entirely unnecessary (and probably won't be taken seriously). You're the only person creating hostility in this environment, yet repeatedly blame it on others. I believe your pursuit could be more successful if you focused on elaborating your points rather than insulting others. Coco Chen (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

All that's needed are some reliable secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A fast(er) compromise on the Gender issue

Admittedly new to editting here, I respect the desire demonstrated throughout this and (I'm sure) throughout wikipedia for critically acclaimed perspectives on all matters. Clearly there has been a smattering disregard for contextualized wording when explaining this desire to newly (relative) joining participants in this review process and I would like to direct attention to the smattering of verbose-and-abstract "Official Guidelines" for supporting arguments. This is a singular very specific dillemma, which should not be defined (for those unfamiliar with such) with the indication of (as meantioned before) highly-abstract overlapping "Official Guidelines" only constraining their thin relevancy to this issue with the pattern demonstrated by implied overlap assuming a thorough understanding and cross-analysis of ALL the cited guidelines.

Rather we should strike the issue at the heart, that is to say the few prominent AND (sometimes) critically-acclaimed experts in this domain are not authors but rather artists (whom are much harder to interprete much less cite). One might argue that it one's prominence hardly indicates expertise in any way, but, considering that more than just a fetish Macrophilia does (inveritably, unfortunately) seem to take the shape of an artistic movement, artists involved do perhaps qualify as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves given of course that one of these artists were to publish an article that fullfilled all of these requirements AND that another "reliable source" be found to provide validity to the claim that macrophilia contributes to an artistic movement. (I haven't check the existing sources, but it would be hard to imagine ignorance of the existence of unusually high-profile artists and media making less-than-cursory representations of the fetish such as "Alice in Wonderland" (debate-ably cursory) and "Guliver's Travels" or more modern renditions such as "The Borrowers" "Monsters versus Aliens" and "Antman".)

I would also like to bring attention to the fact atleast two of the signatures I've noticed on this talk page belong to high-profile individuals within various circles of Macrophilia: JitsenshaSW co-organiser for Sizecon a "-con" covered by this article http://theweek.com/articles/623366/inside-curious-world-size-fetishes and Michat2 whom is a somewhat lesser known artist within the movement (if one can readily call it that).

I would love if we could conslidate these comments into fewer subjects, given the discussion is not so broad as to warrant dozens of topics.

I do mean well here, and believe this article should keep its neutrality while accurately representing the zeitgeist in this word. --Eaterjolly (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with the fact that the vast majority of macrophiles are men? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing, directly. The elephant in the room is fundamentally that the article doesn't properly represent hardly anyone who would actually consider themselves to be macrophiliac. My point is that subject has been mishandled in the sense that a disingenous ammount of weight has been put on Macrophilia's definition as a paraphilia and not enough has been put on it's definition as an artistic genre absent of fetish. Admittedly, only an opinion of mine, I would attribute the source of the confusion to the fact that by definition paraphilia is sexual pleasure derived from technically non-sexual circumstances and that for many artists they create macrophilia inspired work attributing it BOTH to a fetish as well as an artistic genre. One very famous artist alloyrabbit is infamous for having their art taken down from any sexual-oriented imageboards (but not others) despite the obviously fetish oriented content: a stance taken by many artists, some might say because they don't want Macrophilia to lose respect as an artistic genre. My chief argument is that the only way to make the article honest, one would need to include more sources about the art itself and the artists itself. This would also increase the pool of reliable sources, because the wikipedia guidelines clearly state that otherwise unreliable sources (such as facebook or tumblr or otherwise blog-posts) are deemed reliable if the source is infact talking about itself. Meaning that the prominent artists would be free to provide anecdotes to be cited by editors (who are not themselves) if a reliable source could be used to prove the argument that Macrophilia deserves more weight as a cultural or artistic movement than a simple paraphilia. --Eaterjolly (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Truth be told, the weight for such anecdotes would be disproportionately individual, low, and undemocratic. There needs to be some more consolidated research on the matter, however in the meantime I think cross-examining anecdotes from independently notorious sources in such a movement would provide a more encyclopedic weight. Probably wanting 3-4 citations for any major assertions that couldn't easily be inferred upon and then 1-2 for any more subtle such as a minority sub-genre/fetish. It's not really that very little is known about macrophilia; it's more that very little is published about it. Again, likely because it's growth as a genre has been already been documented informally by prominent figures in the community, potential for redundancy giving less motivation for formal documentation. --Eaterjolly (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair Version Drafting

To all watching this page: In interest of making a more universally acceptable encyclopedic edition of this article, I'm planning on spearheading a sandbox-ed draft, based on brand new sources. At the moment it is identical to the present article. Critics both of previous attempts to edit and of the current rendition are welcomed and encouraged to watch and talk about edits to the sandbox edition. My newness to Wikipedia as a medium makes it so I wish to receive as much criticism as possible in order to understand the processes generally applicable. It would be desire-able to be able to make some sort of contribution to the live article, however a trial-and-error process is also undesired-able since it stresses the editors whom voluntarily make it their responsibility to ensure rigorous processes are met. Please do involve yourselves, if not for the sake of community, then for the sake Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eaterjolly/sandbox/Macrophilia Eaterjolly (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Bias involving political motivation

@Flyer22 Reborn: The political bias was in regard to their suggesting that basically implied women aren't macrophiliacs because they aren't interested in dominance. There exists an assertion in that quote which firstly has nothing to do with macrophilia directly, and secondly contradicts conventional wisdom on traditional gender roles. I would find a source that contradicts that point, but the point has no relevance to macrophilia anyway. It's clearly politically motivated because patriarchal is a descriptor of political systems, it's not even an implied politicism rather Helen is quite overt about it. It's journalistically dishonest both to proponents and opponents of the ideology to include the quote but chop out the context like that. Also, you used the rollback function I noticed meantion of to remove another edit of without any justification to counter the justification I had made for the edit.

I do invite you to look at the work I've been doing on my sandbox version of the article and to critique it. It would be greatly helpful, as I feel that I have been over editting on it in a way that wouldn't be justified on the live article. I however have been introducing new interesting sources, and absorbing information from what I'm starting to realize as under-utilized existing sources.

I do not wish to start some edit war or some flame war, especially considering your stature in the community. Original research and anecdote agree-ably do not belong here, however these are useful tools at understanding when the article is truly in a close to complete state, when truth a person knows in their heart can be reconciled with the other perspectives ultimately found and reconveyed. I understand reasonable skepticism with any new contributer, and I understand from what I've read that you purport a reputation for playing bad cop anyway. I also understand that in-part, reverting me where I have worked to make sure I was justified in my edit may have been a test to see if I'd be civil and may also have been in-part just a reminder that baffooner-y, debaucher-y, and weaselling around the rules will be noticed won't be tolerated and it's best not to start.

I don't mean to pry to deep, but it seems like you've had to deal with a lot of BS over the years and would rather just swallow and get it over with. To be honest, I'd rather just give up and accept being in over my head before begrudging or markeing an enemy of anyone on this most valued forum, especially not some one of influence and a degree of renoune. If you want to undo the revert, I won't do it unless invited to. I can't say it would be appreciated, because that's a foolish thing to say. Just the same way it'd be foolish for a person to appreciate a banker granting them a loan despite the banker solely needing to decide whether they can pay it back or not. Surely the banker loses more if the decision is a wrong one, but the debtor also loses if an affirmative decision turns to be wrong. Wikipedia might lose more if you make a wrong decision, but I still also lose if you make a wrong one, whether affirmative or negatory.

Ultimately, what is appreciated is a decision on the matter and a conscious carefully decided and transparent one. I won't ask you to deviate from suspicion or caution either for similar reason, but do appreciate the opportunity to justly and agree-ably abate such. Otherwise, I can relegate back to writing obscure surrealist writings I unsually write in safe obscurity.Eaterjolly (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please examine a few talk pages and noticeboards to see how discussions are supposed to be conducted. Ask at WP:HELPDESK or WP:TEAHOUSE if guidance is wanted. What I'm getting at is that there is no need for an editor to be mentioned in the above—an article talk page is for discussion of actionable proposals to change content according to the normal rules (WP:V and WP:RS and WP:DUE and more). An article talk page should generally avoid observations about other editors. The procedure is to give a diff of a proposed edit (presumably this and/or this), and a brief explanation based on reliable sources for justification. One point to bear in mind is that articles like this attract a lot of dubious interest and discussions should stick to reliably sourced content in order for serious consideration of proposals. Someone focusing on this one topic may find it hard to follow Wikipedia's procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnuniq.

Eaterjolly, I am not heavily tied to that content; I didn't add it there. That stated, I don't see the need for its removal; it's an opinion. The text states, "Psychologist Helen Friedman theorized that because women in most societies already view men as dominant and powerful, there is no need for them to fantasize about it." Sure, she is claiming that women don't fantasize about being powerful and dominant, which is false, but I don't think she means all women. And it seems she is trying to state that women don't fantasize about such to the extent that men do. If you want the text gone, I'm not going to revert you again, but, like I stated when reverting you, there is not a lot of research on this topic out there. And I think it's a good thing to get a (seemingly) WP:Notable psychologist's viewpoint on the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually she seems to be distinuishing female Macrophiliacs from female Microphiliacs, as she said "already view MEN as dominant" and don't need to fantasize about it. Apparently according to Helen there has never been a notable number among females whom have felt submissive.

Given a valid point about lack of noteworthy content in the article, I think I will try to find something to replace it with before trying to remove it again. Eaterjolly (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

At the time of writing I hadn't considered that, but, now that you have mentioned that, I do recall reading somewhere that editors shouldn't be mentioned, rather their edits should be. I admit fault here in talking about the editor. If my contributions page displayed a slightly more senior trustable history, it wouldn't have crossed my mind to, but, since the revert description mentioned a meta of details about my expressed intentions and there always exists the dubious nature of lacking contributions, I wished to strike the trust issue at the heart, only really mentioning Flyer specifically because I figured if I simply went off talking about trust abstractly it would just be passed as irrelevant or unimportant. Flyer seems to be a most senior editor and most clearly seems to have decidedly patrol this article, however I could have avoided discussing the person still in requesting comment from a specific editor to comment: this is a double fault on my part.

On the matter of focusing on one topic, I am afraid you are perhaps correct, as from what I've noticed most editors are quite nomadic and many discussions seem to die before the matter which raised contraversy in the first place has totally been researched and considered, and it seems a shame. However, I can't imagine how I could contribute to more mainstream articles and sidestream/clearly-lacking articles have desire-able sources far and few between increasing the labor requirement to edit.

I still hold steadfast, Helen was making a highly contraversial assertion about dominance fetishes in general one which easily would be disputed by a plethora of sources which have nothing to do with Macrophilia. Clearly this is one of those topics where desire-able sources lack, but I'm motivated to research by a WP:CONFLICT. This is a term which I use on a personal basis and others perceptions of would affect my relationships with others, so therefore WP:CONFLICT is aptly appropriate. I have no desire to "bias" the article, however to add a severely underreported puristic perspective to the article (not removing any existing). As mentioned inappropriately here [2] and cursorily by [3] and can't really be verified at the moment anymore than by good faith, those of BDSM are "paired" with those of Macrophilia due to the oppertunity for dominance which arises from the situation. This can't be overtly expressed in the article due to lack of weight behind the statement, but on the good faith we as editor assume this to be true since it has been reiterated time-and-time again over the years by a plethora inappropriate sources and by anonymous strangers compelled to "JUST WRITE" including some presumably notable one's (or just one's who've used the pseudonyms of notable artists). There are those in the community of Macrophilia who have nothing to do with the dominance aspect and they are no insignificant minority. I wish for them to be represented in accordance with standard procedures. Eaterjolly (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you know Helen Friedman personally, Eaterjooly? I ask because you refer to her as "Helen", not as "Helen Friedman", "Ms Friedman", or even just "Friedman". Calling her Helen seems odd if she isn't a personal friend. Like if I were to call you Justin, instead of Eaterjolly. If she isn't your friend, don't assume familiarity - it implies a sense of superiority. And while I'm handing out free advice, for fuck's sakes stop using words you don't understand. It really doesn't make you sound smart. 108.161.114.105 (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the signifigance in name shorting or informalizing. Bernie Sanders's formal name is Bernard, but most people never here that name. Putin has become a word synonymous with the russian leadership, much like Obama, so much so that their full names are rarely used. I don't see anyone gaining a sense of superiority over those who would say Mr Putin or Mr Obama, simply leaving out the Mr or using the term Barack instead. Also, I've been accused of inflated language in the past, but I make no distinction between common terms and uncommon ones, I use an expanded vocabulary sometimes for expressiveness. At times of particular trouble, I may resort to a thesaurus to find terms which meet what I'm trying to describe. I don't think this something "smart". Regardless of the fellows policies and beliefs, "Donald Trump" is able to express reasonably complex views at a third grade reading level and I think that shows more merit than using an expanded vocabulary to express thoughts of similar complexity. My weakness in that regard however isn't going to ever draw me to strip my rhetoric of honesty and precision, simply to remedy the illusion of arrogance or elitism. Time will show my true attitude toward others, so I have no need for vanities of the present to define who I am or what kind of editor I would be. 98.27.149.61 (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)