Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:05, 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)

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