Talk:J. Michael Bailey - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jokestress (talk | contribs) at 16:47, 23 June 2008 (→Free speech, and reactions in the same issue: blp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:47, 23 June 2008 by Jokestress (talk | contribs) (→Free speech, and reactions in the same issue: blp)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

J. Michael Bailey was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 16, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
June 19, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal 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 supported by the science and academia work group.
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

United States: Texas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Template:WikiProjectWUSTLpeoplePlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

LGBTQ+ studies

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

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Benedict Carey (August 21, 2007). "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege". The New York Times.

Negative POV?

This article view Dr. Bailey in a very unfavorible light.

"Following the publication of Bailey's book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism, Northwestern University received many complaints from transsexual women Bailey interviewed, who complained that they didn’t know he was using them as research subjects and that distorted versions of their case histories would appear in his book."

Bailey asserts that: a) the two women in question did know about the book ahead of time, and didn't complain untill after it was actually published dispite having seen it prior to publishing, b) the research for the book did not constitute formal research (which was one of the main accusations leveled at him)

In addition, this wikipedia article also leaves out the fact that he was exonerated of all charges in the inquiry by the Northwestern Research Review Board. Cite: Bailey's own remarks in the Northwestern Daily (campus newspaper)

In addition, he mentions all the verious drawbacks to his work on bisexual men, and only uses it as a basis to suggest additional testing.

Now I am unaware of the truth of the matter either way, however I am very certain that this article does not portray him in an evan handed manner persuient to the wikipedia standards, and I call the articles bias into question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.217.163 (talk • contribs)

Bailey was not "exonerated of all charges." You can cite Bailey's version of the facts if you have a citation, but here's the citation quoting Northwestern University officials in the top academic trade magazine:

"...the university will not reveal its findings or say whether it punished Mr. Bailey."

Wilson, Robin (12/10/2004). Northwestern U. Will Not Reveal Results of Investigation Into Sex Researcher. Chronicle of Higher Education.

More importantly, Northwestern University refused to investigate more serious allegations, including sex with a research subject/therapy client, and the fabrication of the child Bailey "cured" in his book with with reparative therapy. Bailey's successful case report and John Money's fabricated success in the David Reimer case have remarkable parallels.

The "formal research" charge was the only one Northwestern chose to investigate, because it was likely the only one for which they were legally liable. It was in fact one of the less egregious of the charges leveled against Bailey. Jokestress 20:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of someone's opinion of Bailey or what he was accused of (especially when it was never even investigated), it is clear that this article has a strongly negative POV and I am marking it as such. Foxxygirltamara 22:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just moved the text about his 2003 book to its own article and will spend the next couple of days adopting summary style for that section. If there are sections that feel POV, please cite specific examples so they can be addressed. Jokestress 17:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"By the end of the book, Bailey has personally "cured" Danny of his "disorder" by forcing Danny to conform to gender roles. " This is not at all the approach Bailey takes in "The Man Who Would Be Queen." At the end of the book, Bailey sees Danny again after several years, and feels confident that Danny will grow up to be a gay man. Bailey never attempts to change Danny's nature in the book, and his other research suggests that he certainly does not have anything agaist the gay population. This article is clearly not impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.95.213 (talk • contribs)

The word "personally" is not quite accurate, since he claims Danny refused to meet with him. However, he makes it clear that Danny's mother follows his advice after seeking a third expert opinion.

Bailey writes of Danny's mother, "In spring of 1996 Leslie Ryan came to my Northwestern University office to seek yet another opinion." He then extolls the virtues of Ken Zucker's reparative therapy for children with gender identity "disorder". That means taking away anything "feminine" from the child. Bailey warns that a world tolerant of gender-nonconforming boys might "come with the cost of more transsexual adults." . Leslie reports back that the cure is working and that Danny won't talk about feminine things, and his Dad is forcing him to play catch. When Bailey finally sees Danny, the recommended "cure" has worked. The last paragraph of the book has Danny emphasizing that he needs to go use the men's room.

You can read Kinder, gentler homophobia from The Advocate to learn more about what Bailey has against the gay population. Jokestress 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I read the article and didn't get the impression that Bailey has anything in particular "against the gay population". I did note the noticeably nasty tone the interviewer took toward the end on the interview. Uncalled for and totally unprofessional if you ask me.
On the issue of POV in this article – just because many LGBT activists hate Bailey's guts is no reason to slant this article as an anti-Bailey article. (If you don't understand this, I suggest you go back and read WP:NPOV.) Discuss the controversy, by all means, but discuss both sides of it. Peter G Werner 00:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take in to consideration that the article which might seem too have a negative POV may simply have subject matter which is not very nice.

It is quite possible that Professor Bailey is in his personal life a good and well-meaning person, but that is not the thrust of the piece. It is his record as a researcher in his chosen field which is, to be charitable, "somewhat flawed".

For such a minor figure, this is a heavily footnoted and well documented article. So unless there is some sort of other "evidence" hidden away somewhere, not revealed by "Google" et. al. I am not sure what is expected here. Sometimes there is just not much you can do to "improve" the image of something. The old saw about being unable to "make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" come to mind in his case. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 19:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Gay, Straight, or Lying" sentence

I've removed this sentence because it simply isn't accurate: "That piece, title "Gay Straight or Lying: Bisexuality Revisited" took an oft-repeated phrase Bailey uses to claim that male bisexuals are "lying."" Please read note 3 in this press release by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. They're critical of the study, yet they acknowledge that the word "lying" is not based on any of Bailey's statments or anything in the study, but is simply "spin" added by the New York Times. If discussion of the New York Times piece is reinsterted back into the article, it should be rewritten to reflect this fact. Peter G Werner 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

From FAIR: "In fact, the Times' headline could have been taken from the press release for Bailey's book, which was headlined, 'Gay, Straight, or Lying? Science Has the Answer.'" Here's the publicity for Bailey's book , to which they refer. Here is it on the publisher's site today. Here's where it appears in the book itself. Jokestress 00:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Was the study performed in 2005 or 2002? claims the latter, saying "Mr. Bailey's accusations are actually based on an old 2002 conference paper (see below), extended by adding a few more subjects and then recently warming it over and spiffing it up for re-publication in a second-tier psychology journal." Mdwh 15:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The methodology was first described in a poster in 2002, but the published paper that got all the press was in 2005. To be clear, these researchers claim in effect that all women are bisexual and no men are. Jokestress 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI--Psychological Science is one of the premier journals in psychology. It is the Science/Nature of psychology. Nobody would consider it a "second-tier" publication. --Felzenmat 04:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed this text again. There is no citation that proves that Bailey used the phrase to claim that gay and bisexual people are lying. Its merely a thought provoking title that poses a question. The accusation that Bailey claims gay and bisexual people are lying is critical and controversial and unsourced. As such, it needs to be removed until it can be cited properly. Avruch 16:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

For reference to the "lying" aspect, you have a source on wikipedia. It either needs to be removed from that page as non-citationed or added here again. That is an issue for later (maybe after I get a nap and blood sugar above the current 57). -- GeekyDee 08:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

=NPOV tag

I have removed the NPOV tag from this article. If someone wishes to add it back, please specify areas of the article which you believe do not appear to conform to policy. Jokestress 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

why change description of mentor Dr. Lee Willerman?

On December 16th an anonymous editor changed the description of Dr. Bailey's mentor at the University of Texas, Austin, Dr. Lee Willerman from "hereditarian and eugenics researcher" to "behavior genetics researcher".

Since Dr. Willerman was from 1974 on a member of the American Eugenics Society and his academic work is described as "eugenics-themed hypotheses", I wondered why the change.

In the absence of any new/changed information on Dr. Willerman, should it be reverted? CyntWorkStuff 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Results of an Automated Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Per Misplaced Pages:Context and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Misplaced Pages:Image use policy and fit under one of the Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Misplaced Pages, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.
See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE ]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Misplaced Pages:Persondata for more information.
Per Misplaced Pages:Context and Misplaced Pages:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
Per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Misplaced Pages's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer 15:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Just some suggestions for futures editors to think about. --Hfarmer 15:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV on Research Misconduct

Note: tagged before I read this talk page, just based on reading the article.

The use of "Shockingly" and "This represents only one of the inherent flaws in the logical formulation of his theories, as well as his own personal hypocrisy and ethical violations ..." are clearly not NPOV.CarlFink 16:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I stripped this section back to the bare facts given in the Chronicle article. Everything else seemed POV or redundant.66.183.165.57 12:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

oops, this was meant to go into a new section ...

May I humbly suggest that the expression "the vast majority of", say, scientists, is right up there with the expression "virtually proven" for being anti-scientific - in fact, it's right up there with those who hold things in faith.

A philosopher of religion you ain't!

A few weasel words here, no? Peacocking too... That's a fact, Jack. ask123 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks ok now... ask123 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

NY Times article

This article mentions wikipedia. Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege --70.168.11.81 02:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

The introduction to the section, Research and Publications, is clearly biased. I, therefore, tagged it as without NPOV. It quite obviously highlights the most controversial aspects of Bailey's research without really explaining, in a detailed manner, the research he actually conducted. Once his research is described adequately (just the facts, m'am) the tag may be removed. Of course, this is not to say that the controversial elements of his research should not be included here -- they absolutely should. But they must be in a larger, more balanced framework. ask123 15:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of 'Net Forum as Citation And Other Source Issues

What is the standard policy on WP regarding using an internet forum as a citable source? Specifically regarding source number 19. Also, it seems a number of the citations lead to websites of interest groups (i.e. planetout, outintoronto, etc.) In a controversial situation where they can be expected to have a biased view (as they don't present themselves as unbiased sources) are these acceptable sources to cite? They may be, I don't know all the policies on point.

I've added a number of citation needed tags throughout the article to sections and particular phrases where a contention is made that is unsupported by a citation.

Avruch 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, an internet forum is generally considered unacceptable for contentious facts about living people. The relevant policy (which should have been linked at the top of this discussion page) is WP:Biographies of living persons. This article has been listed on a noticeboard which is patrolled by Wikipedians who will attempt to review all citations provided. Hornplease 10:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Man Who Would Be Queen section...

... needs to be merged into The Man Who Would Be Queen and summarized here, as per WP:CFORK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sections that went into detailed summary of the book itself. I think the main article on this book covers all of that in a similar fasion, so I didn't move anything. I left the sections dealing mainly with the controversy, because I think it is largely this controversy and follow on controversies that make Bailey notable. Would you agree that this material should remain, or at least be modified but not deleted? Avruch 18:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

35% not getting a hard on

Seems about right from the porn industry point of view... (This is a discussion page right?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.75.77 (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian porn

I don't have the time to find reliable sources for this (nor the necessary lack of personal bias), but would like to leave the ideia on the air: most lesbian porn is awful for women - because it's targeted to a male audience. Personally, for me that sort of pornographic material is so excessively fake, forced and far from what's desirable to a woman that it has the exact opposite effect it is intended to. Normally when a woman wants lesbian porn she has quite some trouble until finding sources by women for women. I would bet my head in which kind Mr. Bailey chose for his... research. Anasofiapaixao (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion page, but for the contents of the article - not the research of the subject. Do you have a specific addition in mind for the article that doesn't fail WP:OR as an original synthesis? That is, you wouldn't be the first person applying that criticism but could cite it to a reliable source? Avruchtalk 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny statistics...

Quoting from the article:

Bailey is well-known for research involving biology and sexual orientation. In the early 1990s he coauthored with Richard Pillard a series of twin studies which examined the rate of concordance of sexual identity among monozygotic twins (52% concordance), dizygotic twins of the same sex (22%), non-twin siblings of the same sex, and adoptive siblings of the same sex (11%).

Is it just me, or there's something wrong there... ? There's a 11% concordance of sexual orientation... ? That means that 90% of the time, if you'd take two boys for instance, there'd be one homosexual and one heterosexual ? I mean... either I don't understand what is meant to be understood, or there's something truly wrong with those numbers.

Seigneur101 (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the abstract for the first study, it appears that they recruited volunteers who self-identified as gay, and evaluated their families. Within this group, those are the numbers. So they found 56 gay men with evaluable identical twins, and 29 (52%) of those twins were also gay, while the remaining 27 were not gay. It's not 'if you randomly pick any two boys, 90% of the pairs will match': it's 'given that we're starting with a gay man, about 10% of his adoptive siblings will be gay, and about 90% will not.' WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of February 3, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

Mostly well written, but there are a few issues. The introductory section needs to be expanded to be a "concise overview" of the article. At only two sentences, it currently leaves out a summarization of things such as his published work. Please review WP:LEAD for more info. Next, the "Early life and education" and "Career" sections basically cover one area, and dividing them is unnecessary. "Research" is also part of his Career, so it should perhaps be a subheading.

2. Factually accurate?:

Mostly makes good use of in-line citations to reliable references, but there are a few areas needing work. Currently, there are no in-line citations covering the "Early life and education" section, and I'm sure some of the news references used now cover this material. Also, the first paragraph of "Sexual arousal patterns of bisexual men" (especially the direct quotations) need to be cited.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Broad in coverage, but the article repeats some things over again, which could be viewed as NPOV violation. In particular, the section on "The Man Who Would Be Queen" repeats the exact same quotes by Alice Dreger several times, using the same source. Considering that Dreger is just one person, three quotations of the same statement are unnecessary.

4. Neutral point of view?:

As I say just above, there are parts of the controversy surrounding Bailey that are repeated several times. This is, probably unintentionally, a case of undue weight on one significant point of view. The sentence "According to Dreger, the allegations of misconduct could more accurately be described as forms of harassment and intimidation by Bailey's critics in an effort to destroy him personally and professionally." also feels like excessive weight on Dreger's opinion in defense of Bailey. The article also, unless I missed something, neglects the fact that, according to the New York Times in its most recent piece on Bailey, many individual transgender women "...found the tone of the book abusive, and the theory of motivation it presented to be a recipe for further discrimination." The personal point of view of everyday gay and transgender people, as cited in the NYT and other publications as already noted in the article, need to be given equal weight with the opinion of Dreger. Overall, the article leans too heavily on criticism or support for Bailey among academics. Considering that he is "a reviled figure for some in the gay and transgender communities."(NYT), I don't think overlooking this is okay.

5. Article stability?

No edit wars, etc.

6. Images?:

Images are not required to meet GA. Obtaining free images of Bailey obviously isn't easy, and fair use no longer applies to living people.

Thank you very much for your patience with the currently backlogged GA nominations process. With currently 200 or so unreviewed candidates, the project is in dire need to more reviewers. Anyone can review a GA candidate, so please consider taking on a review that interests you. If you need any assistance, please don't hesitate to ask me. In the meantime, I await your work on the requested improvements.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. VanTucky 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Working on responding.

1. Not done (Well, partially done. I still need to expand the lead.)
2. Done
3. Done Moved some information to the main article and cleaned up a bit what was left.
4. Not done I'm not sure what the resolution here is - I don't want to grant undue weight to the criticism by representing all the avenues of it. The criticism is about his academic work, so it would seem that including the criticism and response in the academic community is the best way to go here. 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the fourth issue (NPOV), I don't think a whole lot of additions (i.e. not a subsection or paragraph even) is necessary. I agree that staying with primarily academic is a good way to go, it's just inappropriate for the article to not acknowledge at all the opinion of the wider gay/trans community. I just meant removing the repetition of Dreger's quote and adding one mention (cited by the NYT) of how Bailey is a reviled figure for some in the community. One sentence should do it, two at most. VanTucky 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright -

1. Done
2. Done
3. Done
4. Done

I'm a little concerned about the NPOVness of the introduction, although I think it is an accurate characterization of what it is that makes him most notable. Thoughts? 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is better. I wasn't sure about using an acronym in the intro (or at all, really) which is why I didn't just say LGBT. I'll acknowledge for this page that I've received some concerns from an interested party by e-mail, but it will take me some time to review the substance there and I'd like the evaluation of the article based on GA criteria to continue using the current version. Thanks, 00:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, I hope we can address the things the person who has emailed us has brought up. But none of them give me serious pause when assessing the current state of the article compared to the GA criteria. It definitely meets it. Congrats, and thanks for your patience! VanTucky 00:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Delisted Good Article

Its with regret that I've removed the listing of this article as a "Good Article." I think it has become evident, based on the recent history of this article and its current state, that this article is not at a point where it can be considered among the "Good Articles" of Misplaced Pages. I think that there are clear issues of stability, of compliance with core policies (particularly NPOV) and of rigor in referencing. Avruch 01:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV lead without violating BLP.

I have no problem at all with a lead that summarizes all the relevant info. Personally, I think the whole story is a bit too complex to fit into a lead. However, if you can come up with text that describes the accusations and the results, then I have no objection. But, putting in the summary only a one-sided summary that makes it sound like he was guilty and that his university is engaged in a cover-up, then you are violating WP:BLP. I think it would be useful to suggest some text here on the talk page before reverting again.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would go further and expunge all mention of accusations which were found to be false or have an unknown outcome. I would argue that except in very high profile cases (e.g. Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson etc.) including such allegations is incompatible with NPOV. CIreland (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly hadn't thought of that. You're right though; posting mere allegations does seem a violation of BLP, at least in spirit. A great many people have very strong feelings about this, however, and I can't imagine how (realistically) such a consensus could emerge for it. The suggestion also strikes me as an issue for WP rather than one just for this page, no?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a complex issue. Sometimes a false accusation can have such a large impact on a person's personal or professional life that it would seem odd not to mention it in their biographical article. However, the degree of impact can be difficult, if not impossible, to determine in all but the most obvious cases. What I find myself asking when I read the article is, Is there a consensus in the relevant scientific community that this man's work is discredited? and the article does not answer my question, it simply provides allegations and accusations. And so I then find myself wondering, Is this article asking me to infer that this man's work is discredited? and that makes me uneasy. CIreland (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Very insightful. For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that there are indeed people who want very much for readers to infer that Bailey's work is discredited. In fact, I am right now in the middle of a content dispute leaking onto several related pages (including Bailey's) where casting doubt appears exactly to be the goal: If something is negative about Bailey it must be correct; and if something is positive, then it must be part of the cabal of his cronies. I have only recently started in the wiki world, but the Bailey and related pages seem all to have been created at the height of the controversy they created around his book. Personally, I can't help but wonder if this crew co-opted wikipedia to serve as a platform for their negative campaigning. But, that's still only my opinion, and I have to recognize their rights here as much as my own. (Although I haven't had the feeling that they would accord the same to me, but that's another matter.) As for the scientific community; some agree with Bailey, some disagree (the same as before his book). Download the Dreger paper; it's like reading a spy novel.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of this article needs to be re-written

The article reads, 'He is best known among scientists for his work on the possible biological basis of sexual orientation, which suggests that homosexuality is substantially inherited.' There are two problems with this. One, it is not supported by a citation. Two, it is worded wrongly; scientific work cannot by itself 'suggest' anything about anything, only the scientists who interpret it can. If Bailey himself has said that his work suggests that homosexuality is substantially inherited, then a quote to this effect should be added. Skoojal (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is a direct quotation required? Isn't a properly sourced statement good enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The direct quotation is needed to show readers who may not have access to the source that this is what Bailey said. The quotation could be placed in the references; it doesn't have to go in the overview. Skoojal (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a direct quote is necessary, but the relevant refs can certainly be relocated from the bibliography.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There remains the matter of the wording. Only scientists can suggest what scientific work shows; the work itself 'suggests' nothing because scientific findings cannot speak. Skoojal (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How now?

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of massively oversourcing undisputed facts, we could also name papers like PMID 9549243, titled "Human sexual orientation has a heritable component" and PMID 7761309, titled "A biologic perspective on sexual orientation". If you want an off-the-wall reference, he had his work in this area picked apart by a conservative religious magazine for daring to suggest that sexual orientation is not entirely a personal "choice". I would be astonished to find anyone seriously dispute his long-standing view that sexual orientation has a significant biological component. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Seeing just how terribly under-sourced most of the sexuality pages are, I can easily forgive some over-sourcing.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording is now fine. Thank you. Skoojal (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

TheLibrarian's rampage

(section copied from User talk:Dicklyon#TheLibrarian's rampage now that I'm off 3RR block):

Now that I'm out of the picture for a bit, it (MarionTheLibrarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has accelerated to full speed. See for example this diff in the Bailey bio. By replacing the allegation of research misconduct with the other allegation of having sex with a subject, TheLibrarian figures it has a good reason to say that "Northwestern’s Provost found no basis for pursuing the complaint." What the cited source actually says is:

A NU committee looking into the allegations against Bailey told Kieltyka, in a Nov. 12 letter, that it was proceeding with a "full investigation of the allegation that professor Bailey did not obtain the informed consent of research subjects." / "I concur, and have directed that an investigation committee be established," NU vice president for research C. Bradley Moore stated. / But the committee decided not to pursue the allegations involving sex, a decision Conway criticized.

TheLibrarian continues with the phrase saying that it "did not merit further investigation.", sourced to the famous Dreger attack piece in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. If you look at what she actually said there, you find that she attributes that line to Lynn Conway's site, and if you check there, you find that it is the recollection of a person who saw another unspecified person's letter from the above mentioned C. Bradley Moore. So much for the Librarian respecting WP:BLP and WP:RS!

And that was just the first in a string of edits. They all follow the same pattern that it started (as WriteMakesRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 99.231.67.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 99.227.88.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and probably also 68.55.67.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in December 2007) which is to clean up the image of members of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (aka the infamous Clarke Institute of Psychiatry and its Kurt Freund Phallometric Lab) and editors of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, while dumping on their transwoman critics such as Andrea James, Lynn Conway, and Deirdre McCloskey.

It would be great if someone more clever than myself would find a way to restrain it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV~~/COI~~ complaint to User:MarionTheLibrarian

Edits like this one are way over the top. Asserting unsupported factoids to bolster Dreger's "attack on the critics of Bailey" as it is called in one of the commentaries, is not acceptable. I'll follow the suggestion above to take you to WP:NPOVN tomorrow, when I'm unblocked, for this latest string of edits that essentially impugn all the critics of Bailey, which you feel is somehow more fair than mentioning things about Bailey himself. Dicklyon (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And then in this edit you make up a name for the cited page, trying to give the impression that it supports what you cited it for. Sheesh! Dicklyon (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So I edited the relevant to a reasonable state, and TheLibrarian put all the Queen stuff back again. I await some explanation how these edits can be considered reasonable, when they are not verifiable in reliable sources. In the mean time, I can't leave such blatant misrepresentations of sources in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Every one of my edits is correctly sourced, putting a one-to-one correspondance between allegation and outcome. Moving past Dicklyon's incivil labelling of Dreger's publication as an attack piece, information from articles published in peer-reviewed journals meet WP:V, even if Dicklyon believes that the journal contains a conspiracy against Conway (a long-time friend of Dicklyon's who comes out looking bad in Dreger's article). Rather than revert Dicklyon's changes, any input would be appreciated from folks who have opinions on which description of the allegations against Bailey and of Dreger's article better meets NPOV. (Incidentally, the title to this section also strikes me as rather incivil.)
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Correctly sourced? I've most recently repeated the problems specifically for you at this diff. I don't understand why you're not commenting on specifics, or just accepting the fix. Calling my complaints incivil isn't going to get us anywhere. Dicklyon (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wording: critics versus detractors

There should be little doubt that 'critics' is a much more neutral term than 'detractors.' There do not appear to be any good grounds for using the latter term instead of the former. Skoojal (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a word that is entirely acceptable to everyone in a complicated dispute. My understanding was that "critics say..." is a weasel word. "Detractors" and "supporters" just identify who is on what side, and I don't think there is much debate about who is indeed on what side.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

'Detractors' is a sneer word, so please don't use it. Your remarks above are not to the point and do not justify the use of a sneer word. Skoojal (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to input from others.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a difficult issue to decide. Identifying the two sides as 'critics' and 'supporters' should be fine. Calling Bailey's critics 'detractors' makes their criticisms of him sound too personal. And note that I'm not saying that their criticisms are not personal, necessarily, just that the article shouldn't use language that emphasises this side of things. Skoojal (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Either can be a weasel word if the critics or detractors are not identified, either explicitly or in the references. But assuming that is dealt with, critics is certainly the less loaded term. I had changed to say some of his transwoman subjects and others, the "others" still having a potential weasel word problem, hopefully cleared up in the refs, and "transwoman subjects" serving to point out more particularly, but without names, who was doing the complaining. Dicklyon (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Free speech, and reactions in the same issue

I'm not comfortable about parts of this recent edit.

Dick removed In an interview with the New York Times, Dreger said, "If we're going to have research at all, then we’re going to have people saying unpopular things, and if this is what happens to them, then we've got problems not only for science but free expression itself." First of all, deleting this is not explained anywhere (Dick, I invite you to explain your thinking, if it wasn't a simple accident), and second of all, removing it takes away any mention of what is, for non-TG/non-sexology people, the only reason to care about this mess at all. TG people may not care about the free speech implications (that is, defending the perceived interests of the embattled group may trump all other concerns), but if your entire life is built around the notion that people can say whatever they please, without getting fired for it, without being harassed, without newspapers publishing allegations from a prostitute about your sexual activities, no matter what the current version of McCarthyism/political correctness/whatever is, then having to go through that much hell, especially for what's a pretty unimportant book in the grand scheme of things, is a BIG deal. I am not the least surprised that a professional journalist featured that quote: their industry depends on free speech. I am unhappy about excluding the perspective of people who don't have a dog in the "does autogynephilia exist" fight. I would like to see this properly sourced perspective restored.
Insisting on "In the same issue of that journal, twenty-three commentaries on Dreger's account were also published, many of them critical of her analysis" also concerns me. No matter how strictly accurate it may be, many always sounds like most to the casual reader. Does anyone have a rough guess at how many were entirely or importantly critical? No matter what the topic, I'd expect some to be favorable, half either mixed or neutral, and some to be critical. I would also expect more critical reactions than favorable ones, because there's no point in either writing or publishing a letter that basically says "I agree." If this "many" represents, say, a third or less that are entirely negative in essence, then we need to evaluate whether "many of them critical" is misleading. Perhaps "23 commentaries, showing a wide range of reactions" or "23 commentaries, reflecting the diverse opinions of the writers" or even just plain "reactions from 23 writers" (I expect that the sheer number is a record for the publication).

I would be happy to have more information on #2, and to hear your thoughts (especially Dick's) about both of my concerns.

Please note that I'm not just fixing what I perceive as significant problems because I want them to stay fixed -- thus we discuss first, and then edit. I invite any editors who happen to agree with me to exercise the same kind of restraint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

On your item 1, I was probably just so fed up with Dreger-pushing that I knee-jerk reacted to it. But looking again, and reviewing the NYT article, I can see that it is indeed an interesting aspect to cover. I tend to agree with McCloskey, however, who is quoted right after that in the article. Probably if we quote Dreger's POV, we should include the defense of one the persons she is criticizing there, using the quote that follows in the same article. I have no problem with Dreger and Bailey and what they've written; just that some editors want to present Dreger as a neutral authority, when she has clearly taken the side of the sexologists against the transwomen.

On item 2, the actual count, if I can believe Lynn Conway's analysis, is 14 negative reactions to Dreger out of 23; I figured that saying "most" would be WP:OR, but that "many" was easily verifiable by anyone with access to the journal (I can forward a copy to anyone who wants it).

Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For #2, if we're saying many because we can't find an uncontestable source for most, but we reasonably expect most to be accurate, then I have no problem with the language as it stands.

As for agreeing with McCloskey, who says, "Nothing we have done, I believe, and certainly nothing I have done, overstepped any boundaries of fair comment on a book and an author..." While McCloskey's conscience may be clear, not every critic's is.

Recall, please, that one of the other participants accused Bailey of incestuous child rape, and (necessarily in that act) accused one of his young children of being a victim of such behavior. This is an accusation of a extremely reprehensible felony, and "I just meant it to be a parody" is an inadequate protection. Think about the basic community standards of common decency. Think about how reviled she still is for that one-time lapse of judgment. So "Nothing we have done, I believe, and certainly nothing I have done, overstepped any boundaries of fair comment" is unbelievable -- as in, I can't believe that saying he raped one of his children can be considered fair comment on a book or an author, and McCloskey agrees with me on this point. I would not, therefore, include this quotation unless you can limit "Nothing we have done" to indicate that this "nothing" does not really mean "nothing." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No one "accused Bailey of incestuous child rape." Please strike that out and be mindful of WP:BLP. Jokestress (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories: