The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Polyamory. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compersion[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There seems to be a number of issues with this page that I believe could best be fixed by deleting page and merging its contents with Polyamory or something similar. First of all, it's important to point out that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide - see WP:NAD. The page subject seems to be a jargon term that is used exclusively within the polyamory community. Of the eight citations listed on this page, two of them come from clearly unreliable blog sites, another one is a broken link, three come from books that appear to be self-published and aren't accessible on the internet, and two more make no reference to the term. Wikipedia policy, as per WP:NEO is not to allow neologisms. That means "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." After my own searching, I can't find significant secondary neutral sources referring to the term - it seems to be exclusively used within a particular community, and thus may not be notable for its own page. I also quote from WP:WORDS: "Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources." The word doesn't appear in general dictionaries, and it's being used exclusively within a certain community. I think instead of deleting the term it could be merged into the Polyamory article. I tagged the article for merging as well and posted this on the talk page of article previously, where two editors supported a merger. mikeman67 (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an outcome besides deletion here—even a soft redirect to Wiktionary, which I don't usually like. This article was linked from The Atlantic, and I don't like the idea of a bunch of people (like me) getting sent to a nonexistent page. --BDD (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Very interesting argument. I think you'd agree that a Wiki page getting linked in a publication doesn't guarantee notability, and instead may contribute to one of those "notability loops" (I don't know the proper term) where the very fact a phrase is included in Wikipedia causes it to be referred to in third party sources. I think there's a real danger here in Wikipedia essentially inventing/introducing a term that isn't reliable or generally notable, but having it catch on because certain people and organizations simply trust the existence of a Wikipedia page as a barometer of its notability. That seems to me to be quite contrary to Wikipedia goals. At the same time, I totally agree that it would be really inconvenient to be sent to a non-existent page, and fully would support a redirect or disambiguation or something to that effect. But I remain unconvinced it is anything beyond a neologism right now. mikeman67 (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Looking at the reasons to keep an article, I can find no solid justification to keep this in the long term. I think deletion is a bit premature, however, and that the article should stand at least until a merge of information has demonstrably happened. At that point, it can be turned into a redirect. In regards to whether or not it constitutes jargon or slang, my initial reaction was that, yes, it's only used in the polyamory community, even if we use it quite regularly and most of us don't even give the word a second thought. On reflection, though, I think it goes a bit beyond a neologism at this point, much like the word "prepend" does in the programming community. It's not a fad, it's a word that just happens to have a limited usage base. Also, with a bit of digging, I've now found a couple of professional uses of the term, albeit in regards to polyamorous relationships: [1], [2], and [3] (you'll have to jump back to the first instance on those last two...not sure what to specify in the URLs to get the links to do that). I'll leave it to others to decide if those satisfy WP:NEO or not. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I disagree that there is any danger of Wikipedia ‘introducing’ a term that can be traced to multiple sources, even if their reliability is in question, unless they can all be traced back here in the first place.( There are other reasons I think it should stay, but I suspect they have more to do with personal opinion than Wikipedia goals.) I do wonder, since the lede says it’s not exclusively a poly term, whether other contexts can be sourced. If so, then a merge into polyamory could be inappropriate. Is there another term for empathetic joy? The notion of being “happy for you”? That might be a better target. --WikidSmaht (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another term for empathetic joy is "mudita". I agree that an article like mudita would be a good target to merge the information to, though I'd say "compersion" deserves some material on the polyamory article as well. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The lead does claim that, but I was unable to find any source, reliable or not, that used the term outside of the context of polyamory. It seems to be used exclusively within polyamory communities (and online on blogs or personal web pages). I agree if such a source could be found it may help demonstrate some notability. mikeman67 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The term might be a neologism, which would make the article fail the general notability guideline, but I certainly don't see a problem with including information about it on other related articles; there are sources out there that talk about it. I think merging some of the material to polyamory would be appropriate, and some the content should perhaps appear in the mudita article, since compersion and mudita seem to encompass nearly identical concepts. Note that on the article discussing schadenfreude (the opposite of mudita), there is a section titled "Neologisms and variants". Perhaps the mudita article could have a similar section where it discusses compersion. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I'm not opposed to a merge to polyamory, I'm not sure a merger to mudita makes sense. While they may be similar concepts, I'm not aware of any WP:RS that discusses them together, so it may be WP:OR for us to do that. mikeman67 (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fair enough. For what it's worth, I did a quick google search for both of the terms together, but most of what came up were personal blogs. So there may be some RS out there discussing the two terms together, but none that jump out. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compersion is not unique to Polyamory or even non-monogamy. I see the term commonly used, and may be less of a neologism than people believe. I found references from at least as far back as 1981 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01257945 The occurences in literature and scholarly references have been much more frequent in the past ten years. 75.72.39.145 (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you cite some sources for that? The only link you provided is about polyamory (the abstract makes no mention of "compersion"). mikeman67 (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reply: The cite given is actually about polyfidelity from a journal in 1981. "The "starling" relationship elicits what they call "'compersion" rather than jealousy." from that source. Ananapol 1997 also is a scholarly citation. Anapol, Deborah M. Polyamory the new love without limits: Secrets of sustainable intimate relationships. Intinet Resource Center, 1997. Journal of Bisexuality Volume 4, Issue 3-4, 2004 Journal of Bisexualty, Plural Loves: Bi and Poly Utopias for a New Millennium. it is referenced as well. Numerous references 2004 and following, and that is ten years ago. "Some polyamorous people experience compersion, which means feeling joy that one's partner is sharing" Weitzman, Geri. "Therapy with clients who are bisexual and polyamorous." Journal of Bisexuality 6.1-2 (2006): 137-164. "Wolfe (2003) studied jealousy and compersion in the polyamorous community." Cook, Elaine S. Commitment in polyamorous relationships. Diss. Regis University, 2005. Keener, Matt C. A phenomenology of polyamorous persons. Diss. The University of Utah, 2004. "Compersion is the ability to transform jealousy into the vicarious enjoyment of a lover's pleasure leading to joy" McCoy, Megan Ann, et al. "Who's in our clients’ bed? A case illustration of sex therapy with a polyamorous couple." Journal of sex & marital therapy ahead-of-print (2013). It has been awhile since I have participated, but it seems to me it is not uncommon for someone who is unfamiliar with a term to call it a neologism. In this case, It think, not appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.39.145 (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! KEEP! Well as a practicing Compersionist with a growing number of followers emerging from the massive swingers scene of Melbourne, I think there is much said above about reference and history, however I think you need to accept that this is a new term with a new history which is still being written. We have been running workshops on Compersion for more than 5 years, and have recently made the move to commence a website compersion.com.au as well as running a Facebook group for Compersion: [4]

What you will find is that Compersionists are largely NOT part of the Polyamory subculture but are most often existing partners looking for a more appropriate way of strengthening their partnerships, allowing personal freedom in the context of a caring, supportive and trusting relationship (this where the anti-jealousy conversation comes from - but it is not a claim to be the "opposite" of jealous! This is exactly the time to fix this messy wiki Compersion reference. It has moved on from the Kerista folk - they just coined the term. We are now actively using this term and living in a specific way which can be taught. Compersion forms part of the sexual sub-culture paradigm shift underway and can be linked to Michel Foucault's "postsexual" (Postsexualism_(Michel_Foucault)) concept.

Please also reference Utilitarianism and Hedonism. From the Utilitarianism page - "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality." According to Bentham and Mill, utilitarianism is hedonistic only when the result of an action has no decidedly negative impact on others." Compersionists are in part hedonistic utilitarians who believe that our pleasure is derived from supporting the freedom of our partner to experience pleasure in whatever form it takes (within guidelines established and evolved by he individual partners) and loving our friends to the extent that may sometimes but not always include physical intimacy, without reprisal or judgment.

120.148.68.127 (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hey there. You may not be familiar with the requirements of WP:N. Take a look there to see some general rules on how Wikipedia's notability requirements work. Also you probably should take a look at WP:COI - it sounds like you have a conflict of interest over this article. mikeman67 (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry Hey There - I am not attempting to be some literary genius - most users of Wikipedia are not.. I simply want to ensure that key terms in use, that the general population may look up on Wikipedia are appropriately defined and linked to other themes.

120.148.68.127 (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP KEEP , Compersion is a way in which couples and individuals live , experience and express relations and relationships with others in a non judgemental way. Its not limited to just physical intimacy in which most swingers, poly groups focus more on, but can be expressed with loving friendships, freedom in relating and forming relationships, emotional connections, mental connections, spiritual connections , friendship, these are all expressed in a compersionsist experience in relating and as approach to life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.68.127 (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.