Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:02, 6 June 2008

LGBTQ+ studies Stub‑class

This 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 Stub This 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)

BLP warning

The insertion of material accusing the editor(s) of this journal for without specific citation of reliable sources to that effect is a clear violation of WP:BLP. It must not remain. I further warn against 3RR--but that is relatively minor in the circumstances) DGG (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why you would consider "the editor (Zucker) and several members of its editorial board (J. Michael Bailey, Ray Blanchard, and Anne Lawrence) have become involved in what has become known as the Bailey–Blanchard–Lawrence controversy" to be an accusation of anyone. Or why the cited published article that supports it is not an acceptable source. Can you review that, please? The cited source that you removed is: Michael Gsovski. "Debate resumes on methods of psych professor's research". The Daily Northwestern. {{cite web}}: Text "date: 2/27/08" ignored (help) Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• The entry consists entirely of insinuation; it does not belong in WP.
• Student newspapers do not meet WP:RS.
• I have already pointed out previously that your description of Dreger's article violates WP:NPOV. In moderating our discussion, BrownHornet21 agreed.. You reinstate it nonetheless.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

my comment, from Dicklyon's talk page:

To assert that the editor of a journal published a one-sided attack on a scientist is a violation of BLP, and must be supported by a reliable secondary source saying that he did that., A student newspaper is not a RS for matters of this sort. You will need a source from at least one academic journal or the like of unimpeachable reputation for this material--& in circumstances like this, balanced sources if at all possible. If you want to try to write a paragraph on the controversy, and have such a source, put it on the talk page. This has gone too far. There is no tolerance for BLP whatsoever. DGG (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you or Marion had pointed out that the term "one-sided" was what bothered you, we could have just removed it. It was not intended to be an accusation of bias. There's no trouble supported the fact that the ASB, with Zucker as editor, published Dreger's analysis. It's also very clear from the commentaries that go with it, and from the reactions elsewhere, that there's a re-invigorated controversy in which the people on the side that Dreger is critical of are criticizing her in return, as well as criticising Zucker. We should be able to frame a reference to the controversy without bias or POV. Probably citations to Zucker's introduction and some the other commentaries would be enough, avoiding the direct responses of the principals that are not published in the ASB (though this might be biased a bit the other direction). Here's what Zucker writes in the opening paragraphs of the issue:

Since I assumed Editorship of the Journal in 2002, we have published four peer-reviewed target articles on controversial topics, followed by peer commentaries, and a reply by the target article authors. The first two target articles were about pedophilia (Green, 2002; Schmidt, 2002), the third target article was about sexual orientation change (Spitzer, 2003), and the fourth target article was about the sexual dysfunction diagnosis of dyspareunia (Binik, 2005). ... The target article by Dreger in this issue follows this newly spawned tradition.

— Kenneth Zucker, editor, ASB

So there's no stretch calling it controversial. Anyone else want to take a stab at an NPOV way to talk about this "newly spawned tradition" of the ASB? Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Stub-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles