Misplaced Pages

Talk:Archives of Sexual Behavior: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:22, 5 June 2008 editMarionTheLibrarian (talk | contribs)1,153 edits →BBL controversy: re← Previous edit Revision as of 18:49, 5 June 2008 edit undoMarionTheLibrarian (talk | contribs)1,153 edits reNext edit →
Line 12: Line 12:


—] (]) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC) —] (]) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not the case that "the proof is in the citations." What you are calling proof is your ''interpretation'' of what is in the citations. Moreover the statement you are trying to make requires combining information from one place (who is on the Archives' editorial board) with information from other places (Dreger's history and Conway's claims). Such combinations of information from multiple sources constitutes WP:OR. Moreover, the contents of Conway's blog do not meet the criteria for WP:RS. I suggest you seek a third opinion.<br/>
—] (]) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:49, 5 June 2008

WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

BBL controversy

Why remove all mention of this controversy? I tried to make the brief mention balanced and well sourced, without POV, and since you didn't attempt a change, Marion, I can't tell what aspect of you felt was "POV". I'll put it back and give you a chance to tweak it so we can see what you're thinking. Dicklyon (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Your first cite supports that Zucker, Blanchard, et al. are on the editorial board, not that they are embroiled in anything; that leaves the first sentence unsupported.
  • That Dreger's history is one-sided is POV; there are other people who believe it is a fair assessment. That makes the second sentence inappropriate to WP.
  • The third sentence is supported only by cites to personal blogs, which are not reliable sources (except for certain uses on those people's own bio pages).

That leaves nothing meeting WP criteria for inclusion. Because we are already in mediation for an issue that overlaps this one, it might be appropriate to leave this issue until that one is solved.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not the case that "the proof is in the citations." What you are calling proof is your interpretation of what is in the citations. Moreover the statement you are trying to make requires combining information from one place (who is on the Archives' editorial board) with information from other places (Dreger's history and Conway's claims). Such combinations of information from multiple sources constitutes WP:OR. Moreover, the contents of Conway's blog do not meet the criteria for WP:RS. I suggest you seek a third opinion.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories: