Editing Talk:Erotic target location error (section)

== Relevance ==

I feel like the article should lead with some evidence that this is a real concept. [[Blanchard's transsexualism typology]] resembles more what I'd expect it to look like - it's important to note who it is that claims this as a distinct paraphilia. [[User:Kuralesache|Kuralesache]] ([[User talk:Kuralesache|talk]]) 09:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
:The source provided, Lawrence, defines it as a "paraphilic dimension", coined and conceptualized by Blanchard. Shouldn't this be enough to answer the "by whom?" tag? what else is missing? am i missing something? - <code>[[User:Daveout|'''Daveout''']]</code><small>[[User talk:Daveout|<span style="color:#333b40">(talk)</span>]]</small> 10:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
::Is the notability of this article based solely on Lawrence being a known name in the field? If there's a good reason that the term is notable it should be clear where the consensus on this idea is. ok it's a hypothesis so it wouldn't be the DSM or a large organization, but is this Lawrence/Blanchard pair actually important for any reason? if their ideas took hold with anyone, it's probably worth mentioning here, or if they had any impact... basically at this point I think the article fails [[Wikipedia:Notability]], particularly on the point about secondary sources [[User:Kuralesache|Kuralesache]] ([[User talk:Kuralesache|talk]]) 17:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
:::I think we are taking about two different things. I was concerned with the {by whom} tag only. For me, it's very clear that the concept was created by Blanchard (and I see no reason to put that tag there, is there any?). 
:::Whereas you're questioning the notability of the article itself, <s>and i agree that it is poorly sourced and written.</s> It's probably best to extract the few relevant parts of it and put them in Blanchard's main article (and delete this one). - <code>[[User:Daveout|'''Daveout''']]</code><small>[[User talk:Daveout|<span style="color:#333b40">(talk)</span>]]</small> 19:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
::::They're the same question to me, because the people pushing the hypothesis are the people who would qualify it as notable. I kind of arrived at notability in a roundabout way, but the red flag to me was that it's not clear who is pushing the term as valid, and that's not the same thing as just coining the term. It seems Blanchard not only coined the term but also believes that it corresponds to some real phenomena, so my issue was that Blanchard using the term didn't actually do much to provide evidence that the paraphilia is "hypothesized" to exist. Maybe it's pedantic, I think the notability tag is all I should have done in the first place, but it jumped out at me specifically that there was no claim "hypothesized by the medical community" or anything to give the word "hypothesized" weight or real meaning, Blanchard's coining of the term seems unrelated to that problem (or, if it was rewritten as "hypothesized by a grand total of 2 controversial academics", it would make the notability issue glaringly obvious) [[User:Kuralesache|Kuralesache]] ([[User talk:Kuralesache|talk]]) 22:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::Scholar.google yields [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22erotic+target+location+error%22&btnG= >80 academic pubs], from a wide variety of authors.[[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 23:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)