Jump to content

Talk:Flirty Fishing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Added

[edit]

I have added some further information. --Details 17:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • The edits and additional information I inserted have been reverted, but there's no explanation why? --Details 18:09, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article does not actually explain what Flirty Fishing involved. Having read it I am still at a loss to understand it.
—gorgan_almighty 14:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Better now? Maikel (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Details Needed

[edit]
  • In the introduction there is no information where this is/was practiced. I guess it is in the US or some other western country. If you know please add that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight177 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it was mainly practiced in 3rd-world countries (see the references at the bottom of the article). It started in Tenerife and quickly spread all over the world (70+ countries, I believe). For the most part (again, according to the refs), it is no longer practiced anywhere in this group. --Thorwald (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They practiced this in London, England.
    I lived in the SAME BUILDING that their headquarters were located in, in Bromley, Kent, a suburb of London. Their benefactor was a wealthy businessman name Kenneth Frampton. Portwes (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose is elsewhere said to be prostletization

[edit]

The purpose in the "Purpose" section contradicts the rest of the article, in which the purpose is said to be/have been evangelization. Allens (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Moonies?

[edit]

Is this an official practice of the Unification Church? I was approached once. Davidlark (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures proposed

[edit]

Their religious soft porn should be included, see http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Flirty_Fishing

Zezen (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That stuff is seriously f---ed up. They even use the "f" word in a comic strip for children. Horrible. 2.31.162.111 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images from xfamily.org

[edit]

I have no idea how anyone can possibly consider images of unverifiable provenance uploaded to the xfamily.org website to be even remotely WP:RS for anything. They clearly aren't, because (a) we have no way of knowing whether they have been tampered with, (b) they may have been uploaded in breach of copyright, and (c) even if they are genuine, and the website is hosting them legitimately, the use to which they are being put is WP:OR. Likewise, the Xfamily wiki isn't remotely acceptable as a source either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When starting a discussion about a page elsewhere, it is good to leave a link on the talk page so others who may be interested in the page know of the discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Flirty Fishing references --John B123 (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is also advisable to actually engage in a discussion, after citing WP:BRD in an edit summary. [1] Perhaps you could do so, by explaining your reasoning (either here or at WP:RSN) as to how the disputed citations can be justified under WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of 'Multiple Issues' template to this article.

[edit]

I have added a 'Multiple Issues' template to this article, for the following reasons:

(1) The article currently cites articles on the xfamily.org wiki in several places. I see no reason whatsoever to see a minor self-published wiki as in any shape or form a reliable source for anything. I can think of no examples of such wikis being cited as sources in articles elsewhere. If there is a reason why xfamily.org should be an exception to established practice, I'd like to hear it. And to see verifiable evidence for how xfamily org meets WP:RS criteria: "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

(2) The article directly cites what is purported to be Children of God material, again sourced to the xfamily.org website, in two places, and appears to be using such material, as shown on xfamily.org pages, as support for further statements unverified by any other source. Ignoring possible copyright issues (I very much doubt that xfamily.org owns the copyrights), and the question of whether the material can actually be verified as genuine, the use of primary sources in such a manner appears to constitute original research.

(3) The article cites passages from the Bible in two places, as support for assertions about doctrine of the Children of God, while likewise providing any other source making such connection. This again is original research.

The activities of the Children of God/Family International are of course a serious topic, worthy of encyclopaedic coverage. Whether 'flirty fishing' itself merits a separate article is probably open to question, but either way, if it is to be discussed on Wikipedia, it needs to be done according to best practice, and not in such a questionable manner. Readers have every right to expect Wikipedia to follow its own well-established norms in articles on sensitive topics, rather than (as appears to be the case here) to resort to poor practice in order to bolster the few proper sources that have been found. If such sources cannot be found, and used to replace citations to the xfamily.org wiki along with unsupported original research, the article will probably have to be deleted, per normal requirements that topics be based on significant coverage in WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with you tagging the article as it is, quite frankly, a mess. However as there is already a discussion about xfamily.org at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Flirty Fishing references, inviting further discussion here comes across as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I would suggest the discussion at WP:RSN is allowed to run its course. --John B123 (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are seriously suggesting that discussing serious issues with an article on its own talk page is forum shopping? That is just plain ridiculous. And it would be entirely improper to place 'multiple issues' tags on the article without explaining why. As for the discussion at WP:RSN, of course any input there would be welcome, though as of yet there seems to be little substantive comment on the fundamental problem here, and no explanation whatsoever given as to how xfamily,com can justifiably be used as a source, in a manner that appears to be directly contradictory to well-established Wikipedia policies. This needs to be resolved, and it won't be until people actually offer an explanation for why the article is in the shape it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What else you would call starting a second discussion at a separate location when there is one already in progress? --John B123 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would call it following the instructions on the template: "This article has multiple issues. Please help to improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page." AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Putting aside the discussion about xfamily.org, there seem to be numerous secondary sources available:

--John B123 (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have added using Life in The Family: An Oral History of the Children of God --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you put aside that discussion? It's a core issue with the article. The entire article was based on a source that utterly fails WP:RS. Fighting to keep those in and then trying to dismiss any discussion of them is poor form.--222.109.91.138 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was putting it aside because the discussion is taking place elsewhere. I am actually trying to make positive suggestions to improve the article, how that is bad form I have no idea. --John B123 (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The" AIDS?

[edit]

"because of the spread of the AIDS" - isn't it just called AIDS? No need for the definite article. It sounds as bad a usage of language as "The gays". 2.31.162.111 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sloppy writing. I've corrected it. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flirty_Fishing&oldid=1258425919"