Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Irreversible Damage/Archive 6) (bot |
→"Assigned Female At Birth": new section |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
What do you think {{ping|Crossroads}}?[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 05:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC) |
What do you think {{ping|Crossroads}}?[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 05:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
:Banglange, what makes you think he is still in training? I think quality-wise it is about on-par with most other sources here. If it is removed, then other editors will wish to remove other sources. Ultimately it serves the purpose of NPOV of showing the variety of views on the subject. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 05:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC) |
:Banglange, what makes you think he is still in training? I think quality-wise it is about on-par with most other sources here. If it is removed, then other editors will wish to remove other sources. Ultimately it serves the purpose of NPOV of showing the variety of views on the subject. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 05:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
== "Assigned Female At Birth" == |
|||
The terminology "Assigned Female/Male At Birth" embeds the ideology this book is criticizing in the article about it. It is nonsense as an "objective" statement of fact; biological sex is not "assigned" by anybody (doctor or [[Sorting Hat]]), it is observed, often well before birth. The only exception is for extremely rare intersex conditions where the sex is ambiguous. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 00:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:49, 2 October 2021
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Deletion of Revisions
The addition of Jesse Singal's rebuttal of the Science-Based Medicine articles has been repeatedly removed from this page. This seems odd, considering that the addition of this recent context does not violate any Wikipedia guidelines. His article forced Science-based medicine to make a number of corrections, though, to date, they have not fixed everything. If this information has been removed by an editor for partisan or ideological purposes, it would be deeply distressing. If the purpose of the removal is for something other than personal bias on the part of the editor, I would like to ask for a legitimate explanation as to why the info was removed.
Personally, I can see no reason that the removal of Jesse Singal's reporting is legitimate. It adds important context for the reader as to the quality of Science-Based Medicine's critique of Irreversible Damage. The referenced article can be found and examined here: [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.3.210 (talk)
- The source you tried to add is a weblog. Do you have a policy-based reason to include it? The way you tried to do it seemed likely to confuse the reader by presenting self-published "rebuttals" to reliable publications as though they were all on the same level of authority. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- SBM doesn't strike me as particularly reliable given the large number of errors in their articles and the obvious ideological bias, as well as the editor's propensity to make straw man arguments about gender critical people. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not that consensus can’t change, but the summary at WP:RSP is that SBM is generally considered reliable with the caveat that it isn’t MEDRS. It seems reasonably used in this article. The claims are clearly attributed, and it’s talking more about the actions SBM took rather than saying in Wikivoice that their response was correct. POLITANVM talk 04:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I do not think anyone is objecting to the use of SBM on the page. It is the fact that, because this book is contentious, every effort to provide the reader with as unbiased a view of the available information should be taken. In my estimation, contextualizing the absolutely legitimate critique of this one particular SBM article is not only valuable but needed, given how controversial the topic is and the significantly egregious errors in the articles. Ending the paragraph with SBM's articles to this topic gives them an air of conclusiveness and definitiveness, which they do not have in this case. Including a small note of Singal's critique allows the reader to see that these issues are not settled. This reflects the inherent truth of the situation, more than SBM stamping the entire episode with something akin to a royal seal, avoids bias, and provides the reader with valuable context with which they can explore and decide for themselves. -MN 10:42, 22 July 2021 (EST)
- Is there evidence that we have an
absolutely legitimate critique of this one particular SBM article
? What it seems that we have is a blog that one IP editor happens to favor - that doesn't usually translate as absolutely legitimate critique. If it were, we would normally have a RS saying so. Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC) - Have you read Singal's article? It is perfectly legitimate to any reasonable person, so much so that SBM made several corrections already. I think you are using language here, like your seemingly pejorative use of the word "blog," which reveals that you have a significant bias in this situation. This bias is precisely why I think the inclusion of Singal's critique should be noted on the page. -MN 10:53, 22 July 2021 (EST)
- Yes, I read the blog post, which managed to balance sloppiness and pedantry in equal measure. That isn't bias speaking, except a certain bias I have for clean writing when it comes to difficult topics. In any case, it isn't a genre of source policy suggests that we include in WP articles, and you haven't offered any policy-based support for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Like Newimpartial said, the bias here is for Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, which are pretty clear on the reliability of self-published blogs (see WP:BLOGS). As a friendly note, you may find WP:THREAD to be a helpful guide for indenting and signing talk page posts. POLITANVM talk 15:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Singal isn't just some rando though. He's a journalist who has done a lot of writing on trans issues including for major RS such as The Atlantic. The recently added text (
These articles have, in turn, received criticism for their own errors and false information.
) was, I agree, inappropriate, since it puts a contentious claim (that the articles contain errors and false information) in wikivoice. But I think it's appropriate to have a sentence about the Singal criticism using in-text attribution. If the claim is something like "Journalist Jesse Singal published a criticism of SBM's coverage, stating that X, Y, and Z." then there's no issue of verifiability. The only question is of WP:DUE weight, but given that the author is an established journalist with experience in this subject area, I don't think it's undue (though it would be even more of a slam dunk if Singal's criticism was itself covered in independent RS). Colin M (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)- If by
(not) just some rando
you mean someone with a clear pro-desistance POV on trans issues, I agree. While the summer 2018 cover piece in The Atlantic wasn't labelled "Opinion", the fact that The Atlantic had to run a series of critical responses after publishing it shows me that it is clearly opinion-ated. I am not saying that Singal's views need necessarily be excluded from this article, but he doesn't have the kind of recognized expertise on trans issues that the WP:SPS carve-out for experts would apply. We need a better source than this blog, I'm afraid, even for an attributed statement. Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)- WP:SPS is a facet of verifiability. But there is no question that Singal's article verifies a claim of the form I mentioned above ("Journalist Jesse Singal published a criticism of SBM's coverage, stating that X, Y, and Z."). SPS would only be relevant if we were repeating a claim from the Singal piece itself (e.g. to take a random example, "Physicians Novella and Gorski have no firsthand experience with youth gender medicine") and citing Singal. Colin M (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- If by
- Singal isn't just some rando though. He's a journalist who has done a lot of writing on trans issues including for major RS such as The Atlantic. The recently added text (
- Is there evidence that we have an
- SBM doesn't strike me as particularly reliable given the large number of errors in their articles and the obvious ideological bias, as well as the editor's propensity to make straw man arguments about gender critical people. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The section WP:SPS is a subsection of WP:NOTRELIABLE, and specifies, Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as ... personal websites ... and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources.
It also states if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources
. Normally, self-published commentators become DUE when they are covered in Reliable Sources, which is not the case here, so I just haven't seen why the clear cues in WP:SPS should not be followed in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, the creation of an article on Jesse Singal has not made this self-published material more appropriate for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Colin M. Singal clearly has substantial expertise in this area and per WP:SPS “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications” we should include this, but with clear attribution to Singal. Yes, Singal’s perspectives are not liked by many as pointed out by Newimpartial—but this does not discredit his expertise in the area. Indeed, we need to be careful to not exclude views because they are unpopular--especially in light of the substantial number of activists who shape the discourse on this topic.-Pengortm (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- What is the evidence for this
expertise
? This has been alleged, but no evidence of recognition as asubject-matter expert
in a relevant domain has been put forward here. Newimpartial (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)- Singal is pretty clearly a specialized journalist in the sciences--especially related to psychology and trans issues. The general expertise in science and psychology can be seen here [1]. Even a critic of his acknowledges that "Jesse Singal has become a leading public intellectual and one of the most prominent journalists covering trans issues, including but not limited to adolescent transition." [2]. Another critic notes " Singal is considered one of the leading voices in journalism on trans issues" [3].al While I respect that many disagree with Singal's coverage and conclusions, he's clearly an expert journalist in this area and his comments should be included. -Pengortm (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- You have provided three sources on Singal's expertise; thank you. The first is his own website, which had no bearing on this discussion, and did you actually read the other two? The quotes you have provided are both brutally ripped of context: neither source agrees that he is an
established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications
- instead, the two independent sources you have provided both argue that Singal is decidedly unreliable on trans issues. - Also, we are in the "D" phase of "BRD", here - please don't reinsert disputed text until we are done. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- While those sources individually reject Singal, they nevertheless recognize his general prominence on the topic in addition to rebutting him, which counts for something. Still, how to define 'expertise' for journalists is fuzzy at best. Secondary sources covering this would help decide the matter. Crossroads -talk- 04:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- You have provided three sources on Singal's expertise; thank you. The first is his own website, which had no bearing on this discussion, and did you actually read the other two? The quotes you have provided are both brutally ripped of context: neither source agrees that he is an
- Singal is pretty clearly a specialized journalist in the sciences--especially related to psychology and trans issues. The general expertise in science and psychology can be seen here [1]. Even a critic of his acknowledges that "Jesse Singal has become a leading public intellectual and one of the most prominent journalists covering trans issues, including but not limited to adolescent transition." [2]. Another critic notes " Singal is considered one of the leading voices in journalism on trans issues" [3].al While I respect that many disagree with Singal's coverage and conclusions, he's clearly an expert journalist in this area and his comments should be included. -Pengortm (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- What is the evidence for this
Request consensus to add book to Further reading
I respectfully submit that Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality by Helen Joyce be added to Further reading. The author, who holds a PhD in mathematics from University College London, is Britain editor at The Economist, where she has held several senior positions, including Finance editor and International editor. Since its publication on July 15, 2021, her book has received highly favorable reviews in leading publications.
The Telegraph, which Wikipedia tells us "generally has a reputation for high-quality journalism," featured a 5-star review by Kathleen Stock, OBE, professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, and author of Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism (2021). Stock calls Trans a "superlative critical analysis of trans activism."
Writing in The Times, which according to Wikipedia "is considered a newspaper of record in the UK," regular columnist David Aaronovitch explains that "Joyce [examines] a new ideology about gender. This holds that biological sex is as much a 'social construct' as the idea of gender is. One benefit of Joyce's book is its intellectual clarity and its refusal to compromise. So she takes apart this ideology of gender with a cold rigour."
On Twitter, Abigail Shrier herself called Trans a "wonderful book" and commented that "Girls are in bad shape. Women's rights are under attack. With unmatched clarity, Joyce explains how we got here and what to do about it."
For the record, I added this entry on July 25, but User:Elli reverted it, questioning the book's relevance without indicating whether or not they'd read it. I have, and feel strongly that it belongs here. Basketcase2022 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Basketcase2022: I again suggest you look at what further reading sections are for. MOS:FURTHER says
An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject.
(emphasis mine). The book you suggest would not help readers learn about the subject of this article - the book Irreversible Damage - and is therefore inappropriate in a further reading section. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- The subject of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality is the same as the subject of Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. Each book helps the reader better understand the other book. Why do you think Abigail Shrier recommends Helen Joyce's book—because it's irrelevant? Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Basketcase2022: them being on the same subject is irrelevant here. That might make it appropriate in a "See also" section if it had a Wikipedia article. It's not appropriate for "Further reading" as someone wanting to learn more about the book Irreversible Damage would not be well-served by reading Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Right; the purpose of a Further reading section is not to provide bias confirmation for readers by directing them to tangentially-related material written from the same POV. We may in some sense be dopamine purveyors, but not with those cheap hits. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Basketcase2022: them being on the same subject is irrelevant here. That might make it appropriate in a "See also" section if it had a Wikipedia article. It's not appropriate for "Further reading" as someone wanting to learn more about the book Irreversible Damage would not be well-served by reading Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- The subject of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality is the same as the subject of Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. Each book helps the reader better understand the other book. Why do you think Abigail Shrier recommends Helen Joyce's book—because it's irrelevant? Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Another critique of Science-Based Medicine, and a Canadian Federation of Library Associations reaction to challenges of this book
- Irreversible Reputational Damage - Dave Hewitt
- Challenges to the book Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier – a CFLA-FCAB Intellectual Freedom Brief
*Dan T.* (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- The first "source" is another blog post; what's up with that?
- The second one is an actual intellectual freedom brief, but doesn't really say anything significant about the book that I can see. I'm not sure how we could use it for the article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Psychology Today
Hey @Crossroads: and @Banglange: if y'all are still interested in continuing the discussion regarding the reliability of Psychology Today. I kindly ask you two to discuss it here.CycoMa (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- My fault, I apologize. I misinterpreted which talk button meant talking where. My comment is/was: My understanding is that blogs count as SPSs and RSs according to the author. As far as I can tell, Turban appears still to be in training rather than being an established expert. So, I don't think it's a contradiction to have Psych Today in other articles, but not in this one. No?Banglange (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
What do you think @Crossroads:?CycoMa (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Banglange, what makes you think he is still in training? I think quality-wise it is about on-par with most other sources here. If it is removed, then other editors will wish to remove other sources. Ultimately it serves the purpose of NPOV of showing the variety of views on the subject. Crossroads -talk- 05:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
"Assigned Female At Birth"
The terminology "Assigned Female/Male At Birth" embeds the ideology this book is criticizing in the article about it. It is nonsense as an "objective" statement of fact; biological sex is not "assigned" by anybody (doctor or Sorting Hat), it is observed, often well before birth. The only exception is for extremely rare intersex conditions where the sex is ambiguous. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)