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.
:::Hi Mike, I apologize for all the hoopla. I check the history of a lot of these articles quickly looking for my edits to be removed entirely (as they far too frequently are with no justification or a very poor one) and mistakenly thought you had essentially removed all of the critical content in the reception section. Seeing that the only thing that has been removed this time is the quote (and not the other surrounding text which makes the point anyway) I'm ok with the section as it is. Truly sorry for the confusion!--] (]) 22:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Hi Mike, I apologize for all the hoopla. I check the history of a lot of these articles quickly looking for my edits to be removed entirely (as they far too frequently are with no justification or a very poor one) and mistakenly thought you had essentially removed all of the critical content in the reception section. Seeing that the only thing that has been removed this time is the quote (and not the other surrounding text which makes the point anyway) I'm ok with the section as it is. Indeed, I think it really is actually better like that. Truly sorry for the confusion!--] (]) 22:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
:::BTW, there is a sociology professor who has given presentations with Kimmel who shares your screen-name, so it looked as though you might know the person that this article is about personally (which creates a conflict of interest.) Glad to clear that up.--] (]) 22:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
I created the reception section, which is completely appropriate for any author, much more so one so widely published, and the single most published pro-feminist author on men and masculinities. In it I sourced a statement to the very mainstream publication "Psychology Today" and was reverted by another editor -- a change I have since reverted, (hence this section on talk.)--Cybermud (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, this is not sourced to a "blog" in any traditional sense. This is cited to the "Psychology Today" offical blog page of a noted author on the same subjects that Kimmel treats. Anthony Synnott, (Ph.D) is professor of sociology who teaches and has scholarly publications on men and masculinities and deserves his own WP page.--Cybermud (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Curiously, the "reception" section now features only one critic's response to Kimmel's work; and while it seems like a good idea, as you suggest, to "remove unsourced glowing praise and POV, content" you did not rewrite or replace it with appropriate content. (This revision and others.) We can work on this together. As you mention, if it is true that Kimmel is the "single most published" author in a particular field, what can we do to write a fair section that reviews notable reception of his work including both criticism and praise, within the bounds of NPOV and BLP? Let's try. Mike Restivo (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I removed that quotation again, but as I mentioned before, I am happy to try to work together to try to improve and expand the "Reception" section to include more apt criticisms of Kimmel's work. If you go back and read the source of this quote, you will see that it originates in Kimmel's book (p. 565); but my initial question remains: Is this quote taken out of context by Synnott? Was it made tongue-in-cheek? Surely, if Kimmel is as influential an author as you argue, we should be able to find more reliable criticism of his work, which we should try to incorporate into this article. Notice that I did not remove the sentence that summarized Anthony Synnott's critique altogether. I simply removed this quotation because I am not convinced that it serves its purpose. If you or anyone else could find the original context for this quote (in Kimmel's book) and explain here on the talk page why it is a valid and transparent example of what Synnott is critiquing, then I can certainly be convinced that it belongs in the article. Mike Restivo (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The reason I mention all of this is because I am having a hard time actually tracking down and verifying the authenticity of the quotation ("Warning:...") that Synnott attributes to Kimmel 2004, p. 565. He says it is from Men's Lives but the only edition of that book I can find is from 2009? So I just want to make sure everything is on the level. Mike Restivo (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Cybermud, I see that you have restored that questionable material. My previous concerns about including this in the article have not been addressed. Please respond to the specific points I made above regarding the provenance of this quote and its appropriateness for inclusion in a BLP article. Until then I feel like this should material should not remain.
Rather than engaging in a back-and-forth revert situation, I suggest a time-period in which we can attempt to find consensus about this situation. I would be very interested in hearing other editors' opinions on this matter. Together, we can improve this article and make it more reliable and informative. After a month, if my concerns remain, I will remove the material again. Until then, I am happy to engage in a dialogue with the editors of this page to determine the best way to proceed. Mike Restivo (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This is is a BLP situation, I have removed the disputed text awaiting a consensus to include it rather than the opposite. I agree with Mike Restivo's perspective and deletion, and would go further to question the appropriateness, per BLP and UNDUE of other aspects of the reception section, and may ask for opinions at the WP:BLPN.--Slp1 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no lack of consensus among actual WP editors. Mike Restivo has never made any edits to any other articles but this one and I believe there is a conflict of interest at work here.--Cybermud (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
A quick look at his contributions proves that the claim that he hasn't made any other edits is entirely incorrect.. --Slp1 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
"Entirely incorrect" is not really correct either is it? My honest mistake was a whole lot more accurate than your characterization of it. Sometimes a half truth is a lot less true than an outright falsehood after all. Mike's first edit a year ago or so was this page and, besides a WHOLE LOT of talk page activity (which hides the minor details you dug for) has only made minor changes to like 3 article's since then. Not what I'd call a well-established editor by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps now that we've agreed on this, pointless, point, you can address the substance of my comments rather than nitpicingk about a mostly true statement about another editor who is, by all appearances, capable and willing to speak for himself?--Cybermud (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
More accurately you have removed the well-source material and not answered my questions as to why you were removing it in the first place. Psychology Today is very much a reliable source yet you seem to want me to discount it on the grounds that you have one edition of a book with something like 6 and couldn't find the quote in your edition. Your edition is not the point. You are doing WP:OR and, on the basis of it, putting the unfair burden on me of verifying the sources of sources that are already reliable in order for me to be able to put in something that already exists in a WP:RS. Please refer to any outside sources you would like to seek consensus or other opinions but your reasons for removing my well-sourced edit, and asking me to leave it out for some indeterminate amount of time until some "other" editors appear is no reasonable. Furthermore, IF YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST with relation to this article you should acknowledge per WP policy or not edit it. To avoid potentially outing an editor I will refrain from expanding upon that point for the time being, but it strikes me that you have been shifting the goal posts as to why this material should not be included.--Cybermud (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The issue is one of BLP and Undue weight. Just because something is reliably sourced doesn't mean it should be included, and in this case it shouldn't.
Vague, threatening allegations of COI are most inappropriate, especially given the fact that Mike Restivo hasn't edited the article in 8 months. --Slp1 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to your comments I've made NO threats and have NOT been vague at all above and beyond trying to step lightly around outing an editor. Mike Restivo has not edited ANY article except this one ever and has only edited it to remove this reliably sourced criticism which is not UNDUE by any stretch of the imagination. I will not expand on this particular topic to avoid potentially outing an editor but if you'd care to continue it you may email me... or just try google. You said you may open something in WP:BLN, and I have no doubt that you would have since you have no reason whatsoever to be happy about a status quo that removes valid criticism from a source you use repeatedly in other WP articles but, nonetheless, I will save you the effort and open a request for comments there regarding your BLP and UNDUE concerns.--Cybermud (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Cybermud, I assume good faith on your part and hope you would extend that courtesy to me and other editor.
First, in regard to your suggestion that I have a conflict of interest: evidence to support such a charge is better than mere assertion. But I see you have provided none. It is trivial enough to link to my user contributions which easily debunks your claim. But to assure you, I declare no conflict of interest in this situation: I am not Michael Kimmel's co-author, publicist, research associate, or student, so I don't really get what you are insinuating.
Second, I don't understand your allegation of original research; I am merely trying to find the original source of this quotation to verify its accuracy. To be clear: you are quoting Synnott who is quoting Kimmel. All I'm concerned about is finding the original source of the quote. This seems to be very much in the spirit of WP:V. Once we have that in hand, we can proceed to the discussion of its appropriateness for inclusion in this article. (But I agree with you in the sense that my inability to find the original source of the quote you referenced of course does not mean that it doesn't exist. I'm still curious why I can't find the particular edition of that book, but like you said, there are multiple editions and maybe I just don't have access to the right one.)
Third, my consistent position has been that we should work together with other editors to strengthen this article. That includes elaborating on the "Reception" section by incorporating more appropriate criticisms of Kimmel's work. My concern is whether the Kimmel quote (as quoted in Synnott) is appropriate to be included in the article; as I originally said, perhaps it was taken out of context or tongue-in-cheek? If Kimmel is "so widely published" as you suggest, surely the disputed Psychology Today commentary from Anthony Synnott does not represent the only critical review of Kimmel's scholarship that has ever been published. What I have been suggesting is that we find reliable and notable sources of such criticism, in order to incorporate it into the article in an appropriate fashion. I'm not sure what's so controversial about that.
Finally, you should note that the substance Synnott's criticism of Kimmel is still included in the article. As I mentioned above, we should be looking to expand this section so that readers can get a good sense of Kimmel's academic supporters and detractors. The questionable material was this one particular quotation. Let's try to stick to why this one quote should or shouldn't be included in the article. I laid out my arguments above and a second editor seems to agree, but of course two editors does not a consensus make! On the other hand, unilaterally controlling this situation on your own also does not sound like the process of coming to consensus, either.
Hi Mike, I apologize for all the hoopla. I check the history of a lot of these articles quickly looking for my edits to be removed entirely (as they far too frequently are with no justification or a very poor one) and mistakenly thought you had essentially removed all of the critical content in the reception section. Seeing that the only thing that has been removed this time is the quote (and not the other surrounding text which makes the point anyway) I'm ok with the section as it is. Indeed, I think it really is actually better like that. Truly sorry for the confusion!--Cybermud (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
BTW, there is a sociology professor who has given presentations with Kimmel who shares your screen-name, so it looked as though you might know the person that this article is about personally (which creates a conflict of interest.) Glad to clear that up.--Cybermud (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
