Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen

Generally what types of information will we rely on the peer commentaries and other SPS's for

Ok new business. We have a basic consensus that the peer commentaries are to be treated as WP SPS's and their content cited to back up this article. The question that comes up in my mind is now the question of the websites. The second question that comes to my mind is the question of what types of info we will quote from the SPS's. I see three things we can take from them related to the topic of the article.

• The reaction of the author of an SPS to publication of TMWWBQ
• The thoughts of the author of an SPS on how Bailey researched the book.
• " " to the publication of Dreger's paper
• Cricitism/support of Dreger's paper.
• Authors who are here in Chicago or are connected to Chicago especially those directly involved should be favored over others.
  • These authors would be used as sources for information on the sex accusations
  • They would be used as sources for information on the conduct of Bailey before writing the book.
  • They would be used as sources for information on Bailey after the publication of the book (Johnathan Adler would be that person)
• Authors who were directly involved with sexology should be given weight second only to those involved directly with the controversy.
  • Authors invovled in sexological and general psychological research would be used as references for anything do do directly and exclusively with Dr. Blanchard's theory and classification of transsexuals. (As their understanding of what is meant by Bailey's book and Blanchard's theory does not seem to be tinged with....the sex negativity of our society. Whereas to most transpeople Blanchards very sexual theory is the original sin all over again. They are not reliable, neutral, scientific expert critics of such a theory.)

That's MhO what's yours? --Hfarmer (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Darlie your comments that this was all done by Bailey in S&M clubs or a gay bar and relying on horrible deviant perverted people is the reason why this article must be comprehensive. There is so much misinformation out there both critical and supportive. I want the wikipedia articles to be one place where agreed upon basic facts can be presented to the concerned public.

Have you been to Chicago. Met any of the players? If you knew how wrong the things you said were. smh --Hfarmer (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Met the players ? No and if you have I think that violates "no original research" DarlieB (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please send me to the official complaint record about Dr Bailey and Alice Dregers notes on it. As far as I knew that was closed and private unless Dr Dreger had some way to broken into personal university records ? If it is public information perhaps we could put a subsection on it that could post it all so that amateur sleuths could all get a crack at investigating Dr Bailey ? DarlieB (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

DarlieB's Recent POV OR and Even Borderline Vandalous Edits

The title is as neutral as any title written about anything I have done here. :-|

These are the diff's going back through time:

• [1]

• [2]

• [3]

As you can see they are focused on removing any mention of the exact context in which Alice Dreger's work comes to us. The publication it was in, Or of her academic affiliation. Her affiliation would not be significant in most cases but it is in this one. It cuts two ways. Yes it does smack of an appeal to authority but it does also suggest a possible conflict of interest, since the person she was supposed to be impartially researching also works at NU. That is a important tidbit that should be in this article IMO.

Then in one of her edit summaries she alleges that "no investigation took place". Again she asserts this without a source. No one else has decided that Dr Dreger's looking at the time date stamps on emails is "not an investigation". Perhaps she can say it's an inadequate, or minimal, or pharsical etc. etc. investigation. But to say so could only be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I am going to give Darlie the benefit of the doubt and read her intent as being improving the article and report this to the WP:NOR/N.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The "no investigation took place" note in the summary was just a quick summary of why the statement should be attributed to Dreger, since we have only her word, no other source for it. I agree with you that we should mention Dreger being at Northwestern (so fix it). I also agree with Darlie that the prefix "Dr." is out of place in typical wikipedia style. And we still have a mention of NYT where it seems superfluous. I don't see any big deal with these edits, even if not perfect; what are you saying is original research or "borderline vandalous"? Sounds like just you being disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we talked about this already? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It does appear that we had settled on a reasonable wording at that time. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dick; That's a real double standard. When I call "your side" on something it's me being disruptive. But when you do it's you being responsible. Around Chicago we have a saying for doing that. "You act like you bleep don't stink." and bleep is not the word we use.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes we had discussed this before. It's in need of discussion again. The removal of information from wikipedia in contravention of policy (as well as adding it) can be thought of as a form of vandalism. You, Darlie and others do not like what this article is about so you seek to express that by defacing the look of the articles. And if possible making the articles themselves bad incomplete, or slanted in the negative wikipedia articles. That is if you are even capable of still seeing how our POV is not neutral but just as slanted as the POV of James Cantor. (Who by the by also thought his POV was so wonderfully neutral. I mention him because his position as an associate of the people at the CAMH is analgous to yours as a friend of Lynn Conway. Your both proxy's.)--Hfarmer (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

However that is not the main issue. The main issue is that darlie concluding that no investigation took place is OR. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As per the discussion on the WP:NOR/N if me and Dick understand eachother at all we agreed on this. That the title Northwestern University ethicist should be appended to Alice Dreger's name in the article when she is first introduced. The references to the New York Times are not necssary (what dreger wrote is in a RS in it's own right and mentioning NYT is slanted editing.) However I will point out that even as this "good first step" was taken no step was taken at all to strip out simmilar information in paragraph 3 of The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen#Controversy where the credentials of each and every person critical of Bailey's book are listed. (i.e. Psychologist Jamison Green). If one person's credentials are delisted then ALL of them logically and for the same reasons should also be delisted.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't agree on "ethicist"; that's a bit of an interpretation that sounds like it's design to support a POV. I'd go with "professor". Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The word ethicist is in her job title. It's what she does. Calling her an ethecist is like calling a physics professor an physicist. Furthermore it seems to be consensus based on the way other people are written about in the article to include the precise title and affilations of the players. i.e. "Executive Director Monica Casper of the Intersex Society of North America." If a long grand title like that can appear for a critic then NU ethicist can appear for Dreger.

Also if your goal is to deigrate Dreger for daring to not kiss your tush, or agree with you. The fact is that to many people Professor could sound more grandiose and authoratative than ethicist. Professor also would not stand by itself. I mean one could ask "Professor of what?". Get it.

Bottom line ethecist stays or all the other titles go anything else would not make sense and would not be WP:NPOV.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this article about the book or Alice Dreger ? The NYT quoted Dreger and did no investigation. If they did lets see it. You quote Dreger over and over and over and yet beyond defending Baileys right to publish she is in no way an expert o the subject or the book, Now I am sick of you harassment and coloring of my edits. One more and I will launch a formal complaint. These were good faith edits and not only did it not censor Dreger but gave her proper credit for having been the person who made those statements. DarlieB (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Commentaries

Hfarmer, this edit is poor writing style. "Alternatives to Dreger's POV were presented in commentaries" is good style (if somewhat imprecise, since it pretends that every single comment opposed Dreger's POV). "Commentaries were presented in commentaries" is bad style. What's your goal here? Can we come up with a third way of saying this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I have written instead " 23 Peer Commentaries on Dreger's article are also presented in the same issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior." A little mistake is something one can fix usually without discussion. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole "Academic freedom" section is poor writing style. It's very POV, essentially pushing the view of Bailey's peers. At least the NYT article says that's what it is, but that detail sort of got dropped ("To many of Dr. Bailey’s peers, his story is a morality play about the corrosive effects of political correctness on academic freedom."). And now H has also removed the fact that the commentaries present the other side of the story. This is simply unacceptable POV pushing.

By the way, twenty-three needs a hyphen. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all. There is no standard that says when spelling out a number you need to use a hyphen. Can anyone else say that 1000000 is written out one-million or one million? Second of all not all of those commentaries are by critics of Dregers's report. Based on the discussion held earlier regarding these being self published and such, Which is now archived, all we can really do is mention the fact that these commentaries existed at all. As whatamIdoing said above the way that was written before is also slanted.

I thought this rule was well known and universal, but apparently you've never heard of it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include more information like a count of how many were "favorable" how many were "unfavorable" and how many were "neutral". Then find a RS which says that and include those counts. Otherwise there mere neutral fact they existed is the best we can do by WP:SPS,WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. Oh and as I said on another page. Life is too short for this. I am going to go away for at least two weeks now. DickLyon, AliceJMarkahm, Banjeboi, etc. all can sit up here and make your "neutral" ( :eye roll: ) edits. Edits, the true consequence of which don't seem to get thought about at all. (i.e. rm'ing dregers title and affiliation and leaving in long grandiose titles for critics of BBL theory. So as to legitimate your side (POV). With the unintended consequence of removing the fact that she works at the same place as Bailey and the implication of a possible conflict of interest.).... I swear some of you are so far over on the anti Blanchard side that even someone being really neutral looks like they are on the pro Blanchard side. If JamesCantor or someone else came here and tried to protray those commentaries as all being supportive I would revert that as well.

Happy Holidays --Hfarmer (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a source to categorize them as "favorable" or whatever, but it's certainly clear that they're alternative views. The whole point of mentioning the commentaries is that the view cited by Dreger is not the only view. Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking about what you wrote just above here. We still need a RS which says what you want to say. Not all the views in the commentaries are the alternative you like. It characterizes all of the commentaries as going against Dreger to some extent. Which they did not. As I have written somewhere above I like how they were categorized on Conway's site, neutral, supportive, and critical. As she put it most were critical however her website does not meet the standards set by WP:RS OR WP:SPS. If it were not for that I would have no problem with including information from that cite, as well as others on both sides. This would be a much more interesting article if that were allowed. However policy being what it is such things cannot be used. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of a better term than "alternative," which certainly fits most of them. Did some of just back up Dreger? I hadn't seen that. Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes there were commentaries by Richard Green, Bruce Rind, Brian Glaude, and Ann Lawrence (see here for the list) Their were also two that were neutral and three that were on topics other than Dreger's article. That last group certainly wasn't really an alternative since those commentaries went off on tangents to the topic. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could just fail to characterize them, with something simple like "Twenty-three comments were published alongside it" or "Reactions by twenty-three other people were published in the same issue." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine with me.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sex worker redux

About removing the words "sex worker": We went over the reasons why this particular person's occupation is relevant here. There was general agreement that we were going to present the facts and leave the decisions about whether sex workers were credible witnesses up to the reader. The information is sourced, and the specific person in question does not appear to hide involvement in the occupation.

Hfarmer, I assume that you weren't aware of the previous long discussion. Assuming that no facts have changed, I think this should be restored to its original wording. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow for once a conversation I had no part in and was totally unaware of. I will revert but let us take another whack at this issue. Would that we could get that same group of people + Banjeboi, and DickLyon in here sometime soon and have a real party. --Hfarmer (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is why this is a prejudicial use of language. JSM was not only a sex worker all her life. There are transwomen of color who have never been able to manage anything other than sex work. JSM is not such a person. She is known to have , if memory serves me, a degree from Devry in computer programming, and is a paralegal now. Focusing on her sex work misrepresents her and misrepresents the known facts. Even though we are only supposed to assert facts that are in Reliable sources. Should we not in composing our precise wording take into account information that is in self published biographical sources? I believe we should. The wikipedia policy WP:BLP states

Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subject themself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

• it is not unduly self-serving;

• it does not involve claims about third parties;

• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

• there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;

• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Therefore "Maria's Story" can be used to doccument facts about Maria herself, and nothing else. A side issue is that in the past Jokestress has objected to linking that page here.

It seems that we can either rely on only what is in dreger and call her a sex worker or prostitute. OR we could use equally slanted language and call her "Paralegal and former Computer Analyst". Or we could call her a Sex Worker, Computer Analyst, and Paralegal. Or we could just call her a transsexual woman and leave it at that. Those are the options I see in light of the sources and policy of wikipedia. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This is just one of the many ways in which Dreger likes to spin the story to favor one side; and Whatshisname only complained about this one aspect of your edits, because it didn't spin to the side that he is on, unlike the rest of your edits. Dicklyon (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually Dick What am I doing in this case merely informed me of previously reached consensus. There is no spin there. How about instead of being so quick to accuse others of being biased you take an honest look at yourself in the mirror and ask that person looking back at you if they are neutral on this issue. If they are honest they would recognize that they aren't. I am neutral. I make edits like this one all the time but you either don't notice or only complain when I try to neutralize some of the acidic vitriol that you and others would like to fill these pages with. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dreger provides very serious spin, and your treatment of her article as "reliable" and suppression of the alternative veiws from the commentaries is what I'm referring to. What "acidic vitriol" are you referring to that I've added? Dicklyon (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the issue of providing a proper source as being separate from the basic facts. Considering just the basic facts, nobody disputes that at the relevant time, JSM's primary (or perhaps sole) occupation was getting paid to have sex with people. You can call that "prostitution" or "sex work" or whatever you like (I believe that 'sex worker' is considered the least derogatory option), but it appears to be accurate, and nobody has ever tried to dispute that -- not JSM (who appears to be unusually public about it), not Bailey, not James, not anybody.

As a matter of providing a proper reliable source, I'd probably go with Dreger's paper (I assume this is mentioned in it?), because (1) WP:V considers journal articles to be a higher quality source than self-published information, and (2) it's already in the article, so it won't add any additional references to the list. I'm sure that we could provide multiple reliable and semi-reliable sources on this point, but I think that would tend to overemphasize it. (Nothing like a dozen refs to make the reader think some detail is truly important.)

And, yes, Dick, the reason I added this note was simply because we've already had an agreement on that particular point. I didn't pick apart each and every change because I didn't consider them to be important one way or another. For example, Hfarmer deleted a link to a copy of the actual complaint, which I would have left alone (a copy of a formal complaint is an authoritative source for its own contents, even if it is self-published). If you have specific concerns about any other edits that were made recently, please feel free to start a new section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

@ Dick.. What suppression? Need I remind you again that I argued in favor of including information from the commentaries, and websites such as lynnconway.com et al. ? Here and now I have made in this one case a good case for including information from a persons self published autobiography. WP Policy allows that. Dreger's article as whatamIdoing points out is reliable, by WP standards, because it is published in a peer reviewed journal. That's all there is to it. Sometimes it goes one way other times it goes the other.

How about I roll back to the status quo before my edits? Would that make both of you happy? --Hfarmer (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Your long string of edits started by taking out the word "alternatives." If you're going to do that, you should put instead some actual quotes from some of the commentaries. If you aren't willing to say there are alternatives, and treat Dreger's piece as more "reliable" than those alternatives, even though in your personal life as you say you are well aware of how slanted Dreger is, then how are we to interpret your intentions? Yes, reverting all that long string of edits would be an improvement. Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Dick we have been over this. There was a big long request for comments, allot of people from all sides participated. Our side, remember I was on your side in that debate, lost. That's done with. Looking again at the various policies related to reliable sources I don't see how we can treat those commentaries as reliable sources. Just so that you won't feel wronged. I am going to leave a message at WP:RS/N. Perhaps this time we can get uninvolved editors to agree to at least using the commentaries in some limited sense should be allowed. --Hfarmer (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Who lost was wikipedia, by allowing User:James Cantor to jump in with a biased summary of the discussion. There was never any final consensus to not cite the commentaries. There are other things I don't remember as you do, too. Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Notice Board

Just to keep things moving and not get in a unproductive argument with tunnelvision Dicklyon I have refered the issue of the commentaries back to the reliable sources notice board. I have asked that the positions expressed in the archive of the old discussion be taken into account in reaching a new consensus. Since I am sure that ProudAGP, Cantor, Jokestress, DarlieB etc will be back and may be observing this. I don't want to have to go through this a third or fourth round in such a short time.

I will also inform active editors that have recently become engaged. Will this make you happy Dick? --Hfarmer (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You may have to scroll down the page to see the discussion. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok I have notified everyone involved in editing this article, in the last discussion of this point, editing other related articles, etc. So we can have a real quorum of the people involved in this and once and for all settle this matter. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the direct link if anyone was having problem seeing it. -- Banjeboi 03:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for an inquiry into James Cantor editing this article

Is it me or do I find User:James Cantor editing this article a complete and utter betrayal of the standards of neutrality. He is an actual participant in the controversy and a cohort of the infamous Dr Bailey. " The book received praise from gay sexual behavior scientists James Cantor" . Some might consider Cantor a another huge bigot so I'd like to see wiki giver clarity on issues of participants writing their own articles. Perhaps Dr Bailey or Alice Dreger ( hfarmer ) would like to comment.DarlieB (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he and I have agreed not to edit the article, from a mediation when he was doing it more surreptitiously as User:MarionTheLibrarian. He is clearly very non-neutral, as you say, and pushes hard on this talk page, which he has every right to do, and has close allies that help him push the POV of the academic sexologist friends of Bailey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DickLyon (talk • contribs)

Yes I recall that. It is interesting that Dick more or less accuses me and anyone not on his side of being a WP:MEATPUPPET but I was here well before Marion/James_Cantor. Notice that neutrality means not being on his side or Cantor's side. Heck I am actively disagreeing with Cantor right now and yet I get this crap. Sheesh.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What crap did you get? I never suggested you're a meat puppet. I think I said you tend to agree with the sexologists' side, which still seems pretty true to me. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you probably interpreted "close allies" above as referring to you. Partly true, but I had in mind primarily ProudAGP, and secondarily WhatamIdoing, and then maybe you after that. Maybe "close allies" was overstating it for WhatamIdoing and you, but it's still not the same as meat puppet. Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As Dicklyon said, neither he nor I edit the main page of this article and have not for several months. I am surprised that someone around here as long as DarlieB did not think to check the page's history. I am not surprised, however, that DarlieB would ask for an inquiry regarding me, yet entirely overlook user:Jokestress who does edit this page and whose involvement in the controversy dwarfs mine (it wasn't me getting mentioned in the NYT). I would be happy to participate in any inquiry that would involve looking into edits from people all sides...If DarlieB's request is sincere rather than self-serving, then she will support me in this.
And, yup, Hfarmer and I are actively disagreeing on something right now...as educated and intelligent people often do while still respecting each other and enjoying their company. You can't have harmony when you all sing the same note.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that if anything could bias me towards Cantor's side is that they don't personaly call me names. --Hfarmer (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been called names hfarmer , a question on your identity, well that's something else. You have made threats of inquiries and I welcome them . Yes Dr Cantor I'm well aware of Andrea's presence as Jokestress and I've openly disagreed with her approach and have been attacked by her several times. We are not all the same as you Bailey and Blanchard seem to believe . This article is totally POV since the opinion rendered as an "expert" in a field that neither cures nor has verifiable proof is little but opinion. Calling someone an expert in that field removes the actual credibility of real doctors and scientists. I don't believe you should even be here . I would love to have all our identities verified but wiki doesn't do that DarlieB (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

DarlieB's investigation issues

Darlie, I've reverted your POV-pushing slam on Dreger's (and Carey's) work. You can't simply assert that you personally believe that Dreger and Carey were negligent and didn't bother to do any investigation. You need to provide a reliable source that says this. In the absence of such a source, we have to assume that Dreger and Carey both did a normal amount of research. Certainly Carey's job was hampered by the refusal of several prominent activists to speak to him, but that's not sufficient justification to declare that the work was "unverified". You might also wish to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia says about using POV-pushing words like "she alleges".

You have two requests on this page for someone to prove that Dreger and Carey did their jobs properly. This is not how Wikipedia works. WP:V says that it's your job to prove that the existing reliable sources have the faults that you find in them -- not for other editors to prove that articles in the academic journals and major newspapers performed to the standard that you personally would have preferred. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore WhatamIdoing's edit is more a more neutrally worded and in accord with policy. On top of that it states that the sexual allegation is "unsupported by evidence" that's actually more favorable than writing that she says it didn't happen. There is a crucial difference there. Afterall Monica Lewinski's allegations were unsupported until a certain dress showed up.--Hfarmer (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Doit. I welcome the inquiry. It's not POV . Dregers results are not verifiable nor were they part of any official investigation. Point me to the repeatable evidence rather than Alice Dregers opinion. Source it. Lewinski is irrelevant since there is no evidence of any Dreger investigation, just her opinion. Source the official investigation and it's verified evidence or delete all of Dregers opinion. This is supposed to be about the book and you all are making it a Dreger POV article DarlieB (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

For WhatamIdoing. Was Dreger part of an official investigation ? No. Was her expertise in investigations ? No. Has anyone else verified her findings ? No. So what you are laying out in the court of public opinion is one persons unqualified , unverified opinion in a field where she has no history nor proven expertise. Nice job . Brilliant. If this section is allowed to even stay it will be with the qualification that she is unofficial and unverified. Otherwise it will be completely deleted. Alice Dreger is not a credible source on this subject.DarlieB (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outendenting) Let's cut through all of this static and misconception about what Dreger actually said and look at what is said. On page 41 of the PDF page 406 in the journal second column of Dreger's paper she writes this....

....1998, when she claims the relations happened. Even after this conclusion, the curious may still wish I could tell them for sure whether the alleged sexual relations happened. I must leave it to readers to make what they will of what I have uncovered regarding the nature and timing of Juanita’s story (or stories), and to also decide what to make of the roles of Conway, James, and McCloskey in the formal production and broadcasting of the injurious claim. From the vantage point of this inquirer, it certainly looks as if the allegation—particularly the choice of the conveniently vague phrasing ‘‘sexual relations’’ combined with otherwise highly specific details about the when, the where, and the who of the supposed event—amounted to a trumped-up attempt on the part of a small circle of Bailey’s transwomen critics to damage his professional reputation. To some extent, it worked, in large part because it cleverly took advantage of the sex-negative attitude that pervades American culture, including the particular cultural phobias that surround transwomen such as Juanita. As Bailey remarked to me, ‘‘it was deeply ironic that Conway et al. were trying to sensationalize sex with transsexuals,’’ but it seemed they would do even that to try to get back at Bailey for the claims he made in his book (Bailey to Dreger, p.e.c., July 19, 2006).

With respect to the sexual relations allegation she does not conclude that the relations did or did not happen. To say that Dreger found the allegation to be unsupported by evidence is to me a good way to summarize in a sentence all of the above. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting that. I might summarize it a bit differently: "Dreger says she has no idea what really happened, but expressed the opinion that the transwomen were really nasty to Bailey." I think that's a more accurate reading of what she actually wrote in her peer-reviewed paper. , or at least the paragraph you quote above. Does anyone disagree? Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me write this. "Dreger's investigation of the allegation of "sexual relations with a research subject" concluded that sex may have happend, but if it did the person in question was not in fact a research subject." Is that not what Dreger found? --Hfarmer (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you quote the bit that this summarizes? It's not the bit you quote above. Dicklyon (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that any of this matters. We have two high-quality sources -- an article in a major newspaper, and an article in a respected academic journal -- that provide this information. We've met the requirements of Wikipedia's policies. DarlieB, on the other hand, is trying to frame these high-quality sources as being biased and unreliable -- solely on the basis of unsourced personal beliefs. Let's step away from trying to figure out what's True™: DarlieB's edits do not tell us what is verifiable.

Note, please, that this information is not presented as the Truth™: we merely claim that "According to Dreger," this is the case. (We could, of course, have handled it differently to make exactly the same point without reference to Dreger: We could have cited the original source and said that a complaint filed in 2003 alleged improper sexual relations in 1998.)

And Dick, I do encourage you to actually read Dreger's paper. Go into it with an open mind and form your own judgment about the level of work that Dreger did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, there may be pieces of it that I haven't read, but I don't feel like doing the whole thing front to back at this point. I've been pretty much over it all. As to the opinion being verifiable, I agree. I still suggest that the article would be improved by also including an opinion on the other side, eg from one of the commentaries. Maybe John Bancroft's "contrary to what Dreger was quoted as saying in the New York Times, I do not feel that this needs to have a major negative impact on scientific discourse; it might even improve it." Or something like that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when did a newspaper, that had done NO INVESTIGATION AT ALL become a "hi quality source" by "quoting" Alice Dreger ? I've been quoted in newspaper numerous times and RARELY have those quotes been accurate nor am I an "expert ". I'm not saying they are "bias" , I am saying they are a nonparticipant and that quoting Dreger as an an observer does not validate her words . You are trying to make them into an investigating body and source on their own when they aren't. Dregers OPINION that this is an academic freedom issue is even in question since her OPINION is not even official nor was her informal history publication collaborated by any other source ( since all the records are private and no one can get access to them ) . She has no expertise as an investigator PERIOD! And let me repeat, this article is about the book, NOT BAILEY . Baileys only defender is not even defending about his book, her guesswork is about Bailey himself. Stop trying to force this into the book section. Go to the article on Bailey and write all the factless baloney you want.DarlieB (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

DarlieB, where's the proof that The New York Times didn't do an adequate amount of investigation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the proof that the NYT's DID ANY INVESTIGATION AT ALL WAID ?! Like some Christian wanting to prove god exists without proof you say "Where is your proof god DOESN'T exist "?! No, the burdens on you ! Even Dreger says she doesn't know and she was the only one doing an amateur examination of the subject . For a good part of this year this article has been full of this kind of misrepresentation of who was investigating. You all have been trying to force Dreger's opinion in here over and over when it's "OPINION" , not fact. You said :

"Let's step away from trying to figure out what's true: DarlieB's edits do not tell us what is "

All I care is what meets the standards of an honest presentation of facts. You have been allowed to unfairly portray this as academic and intellectual freedom when no one stopped the book from being published at all. Since Northwestern's investigation into Bailey was totally closed and he claims his loss of position was not due this case just how was his freedom of speech removed ? On the one hand he claims damage on the other he said it had no effect. Which is it ? And Dreger tried to get Andrea James speaking engagement there killed , is this the champion of open discourse ? All academics have a responsibility to their theories with an understanding of what damage could be done . Baileys work was fairly academically challenged by people/victims who found it offensive . People like Lynn Conway have been Libeled in my opinion and Alice Dreger's words fall like a house of cards in the wind. Every single day academics without a sensationalist theory to promote are promoted or lose their jobs based on their work. I find it humorous to think that an some in the academic establishment really believe 3 transwomen brought down this established academic. That's where I've heard it all. The guts it takes to present that kind of frivolous accusation falls into the realm of a bitter losers who can't believe that the truth is the truth. At this point I'm thinking of removing Alice Dreger completely because she not only has no proof but there are 23 academics cited that directly challenge her. How is it it is only her quotes that have been printed here over the last year ???? What irks me most of all is that it is assumed that Dreger's words held the truth without a shred of evidence . It is my opinion that this was only possible because her opponents were not in the "norm" club. DarlieB (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DarlieB, you seem to misunderstand. All I care about is compliance with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. The point is not Truth™. It's verifiability. We don't have to "prove" that a journalist published in The New York Times and International Herald-Tribune did "ANY INVESTIGATION AT ALL". We only have to prove that it was published in a widely respected media source.

Having said that, how Carey could interview so many people and still be charged with not doing any investigation is beyond me. Did Carey not interview McCloskey? Did he not repeatedly ask Conway for interviews? Did he not, in fact, talk to several people from both "sides" of the scandal and others that had no connection at all? Is that "no investigation at all"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If you cared about Wikipedia's fundamental policies then you violated "Do no harm " right from the beginning. I've been here long enough to know the accusations of a "conspiracy " of transsexuals quoted in Dreger's fantasy article violates " Do no Harm " as did false accusations and intentional edits out of context against Andrea James. It's a one sided accusation festival without a fair hearing and this wont be tried in the court of public opinion without balance. Being" quoted in a NYT article" is a far cry from the absolute lie that it was "investigated by the NYT ". I had been deleting since the beginning. It doesn't matter even the slightest bit that Dreger was quoted in the NYT's because Dreger is a unofficial amateur with no credentials in investigation, no access to the records and or people involved beyond Bailey AND SHE'S NOT EVEN DEFENDING BAILEYS BOOK ! She has some made up story about transsexuals getting a professor fired when EVEN BAILEY SAYS HE DIDN'T RESIGN BECAUSE OF THEM ! Shessh.You have no basis whatsoever to include her ravings here other than your own POV. She is not backed up by anyone or any fact whatsoever. DarlieB (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Spinning the IRB-qualified research question

The beefed-up sourcing that WhatamIdoing has added to the bit about IRB-qualified research is another good example of biased spin in this article. Nothing in that well-sourced sentence is directly connected to Bailey or his book, except by implication. To leave the impression that this official document was in some way connected to Bailey's case, or that it shows the charges were improper, is irresponsible. The only reliable source that I can find for a connection is again the Dreger piece; she invokes that source to absolve Bailey of wrongdoing. But look at the commentaries: shouldn't their alternatives to this view also be mentioned if we're going to mention Dreger's opinion? For example, John. H. Gagnon, author of The Social Organization of Sexuality, says in reaction to Dreger:

Bailey has made the argument that this book was not meant to be a work of science nor did his various contacts with trans-gendered persons in his office or in other public locations rise to the scientific level which required formal consent forms or IRB approval. My reading of Dreger suggests to me that she agrees with Bailey. My sense is quite different. To argue that TMWWBQ was not meant to be a book of science appears to be more a result of the conflict about the book than a description of the author’s intentions.

and

for anyone coming from disciplines in which field studies (often called participant observation) are more common and in which IRB approval is usually necessary, an alternative view of Bailey’s activities is surely possible.

and

From the point of view of most IRBs with which I am familiar, Bailey was doing field work and his respondents were research subjects, even though he did not think so at the time.

and

I am not sure how the IRB on the main campus of Northwestern, which is far more familiar with social science research, would have dealt with Dreger’s submission. I know as a matter of personal experience that studies such as hers (including oral histories) have required IRB approval at other universities and have required consent forms. She makes the case that what she has done does not rise to the level of ‘‘scientific research.’’ Here, I believe that she is being disingenuous: hers is a paper published in scientific journal, from an author who has an academic appointment in a medical school, who is a professional historian, who says that her goals are setting the historical record straight. What is this but careful scientific research?

Or perhaps Riki Lane, who says:

As it wasn’t research, he didn’t need IRB oversight. Dreger ends up with an individualist, legalist defence of Bailey from various charges, which obscures the larger ethical questions: Why was a scientist writing so unscientifically about science in a way that portrayed a very marginalized group so negatively? Is it reasonable to slip through regulatory cracks to avoid the need for IRB oversight? Is it reasonable for a scientist to present his or her hunches and biases as if they are supported by rigorous science?

Does anyone object to saying a few words about these alternative viewpoints, and maybe reducing the amount of ink on the tangentially connected IRB decision? Are these people "expert" enough to be reiable sources for an alternative opinion to Dreger's? Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the primary reason that I added those links were because that issue comes up on these talk pages, and I thought that a more find-able location for them might be helpful in the future.

In the bigger picture, the fact that institutions incorrectly (in the view of the government) required IRB approval for oral histories and unstructured conversations with people is exactly why the DHHS issued this clarification. The government does not, and never intended to, consider talking to people a regulated activity. There are still a few institutions that are scared to comply with this directive (see, for example, the more forceful 2004 restatement by the same agencies), but the fact that some institutions are trying lawsuit-proof free speech doesn't make it either necessary or appropriate as a matter of law. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with that. The question is what to say in the article, where your interpretation, and mine, are hardly relevant compared to those of Dreger and the commentaries that connect this stuff to the article topic. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure why not? But don't go overboard. How about something like this?

Rikki lane and X# of others wrote commentaries critical of Dreger. Lane said "As it wasn’t research, he didn’t need IRB oversight. Dreger ends up with an individualist, legalist defence of Bailey from various charges, which obscures the larger ethical questions..." Richard Green and Y others wrote commentaries that were supportive of Dreger "Quote of simmilar length and impact from Green. Say several others wrote commentaires that were only tangentially related to the subject.

This would leave a quote of criticism, and references the number who criticised, a quote of support, and the number who supported, then for completeness mentions commentaries that were not directly about Dreger's paper. That would be both neutral and comprehensive, and concise. Only quoting critical commentaries would likely be none of those.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to pick one, pick the one who is a prof, not the student. Mentioning the number who criticize Dreger is obviously inappropriate OR. There's no need for "completeness", whatever you meant by that; just that an opinion on one side should be balanced by one on the other. As for the sideline on IRB guidelines, I still argue that it's undue WP:SYNTH designed to help Dreger defend Bailey, and hence inappropriate. Does anyone not on Bailey's side edit this article? Dicklyon (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this right...You don't think it is worth mentioning just how many more commentaries were critical (double digits) VS how many were supportive (about 4)? As for your second point. If you mean to not mention the fact that not all of the commentaires were negative that would not be a balanced NPOV writing. How about you just write what you think it should look like and we can discuss it. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I even bother trying to communicate with you. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding IRBs, two published experts have weighed in on the controversy. In Jack Katz's "Toward a Natural History of Ethical Censorship" he reviews cases in which IRBs have been used by those trying to censor research or ideas. About the Bailey case he writes:

"Any ‘hot button’ issue may tempt opponents of a study’s substantive arguments to reach for the IRB as a tool of repression. The targets of critical studies, as distinct from the subjects contacted in gathering data, have increasingly appreciated the leverage value of IRB regulatory authority. When he was chair of the psychology department at Northwestern University,Michael Bailey was attacked by transsexual professors at other universities who were outraged at his argument, in a popular-readership-oriented book, that some candidates for male-to-female sex change operations are aroused sexually by the idea of being a woman (Dreger, forthcoming)."

AU: Jack Katz TI: Toward a Natural History of Ethical Censorship SO: Law & Society Review VL: 41 NO: 4 PG: 797-810 YR: 2007 ON: 1540-5893 PN: 0023-9216 AD: UCLA DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2007.00325.x US: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2007.00325.x

Zachary Schrag is an Assistant Professor of History at George Mason who maintains a blog about IRBs in the social sciences. He has a book under contract with Johns Hopkins Press on this topic, and he has published an article on it as well. He has no evident interest in transsexualism or sexuality. He wrote a blog about the Bailey case:

http://www.institutionalreviewblog.com/2008/06/psychologist-who-would-be-journalist.html

Among key quotations from the blog:

"Of the commentators in the journal who take on the human-subjects angle, most recognize the flimsiness of the human-subjects case against Bailey."

He notes that "only two argue that Bailey's work should have been subject to IRB review." He critiques both of these, noting that Richard Green was focusing on practices before 1981 when the current definition of human subjects research was adopted (and hence his observations were irrelevant). He says of Gagnon: "Gagnon did not read Dreger's article very carefully."

This controversy was important partly because it exemplified the vulnerability of researchers being attacked through the IRBs for unpopular ideas. Obviously, Conway et al. do not believe (or will not admit) that they did this, but it needs to be mentioned that some people (including some experts) believe that they did.ProudAGP (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to re-open this again, but since we do a lot of {{Round in circles}} and I have it handy, the question of whether Bailey's interviews were IRB-qualified is addressed by a reliable source in Wilson, Robin. "Transsexual 'Subjects' Complain About Professor's Research Methods." The Chronicle of Higher Education 25 July 2003, Vol. 49, Issue 46. The text can be found here. (Note that this was published several months before the DHSS formally clarified that the critics of the everything-goes-to-IRB rules were right.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Disingenuous edit?

HFarmer's recent edit was accompanied by summary " I added in Northwestern University Ethicist. Her title and affiliation must remain they are important information. Me and Dick agreed on that" seems to seek approval based on a presumption of my agreement. Of course she needs to be identified as being at the institution as Bailey, but calling her an "Ethicist" is not concistent with her own web pages or degrees, and capitalizing it makes it even worse. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't remember our conversation a week or so ago at WP:NOR/N about this very topic.Darlie B removed Dreger's title and affiliation information. The fact that Dreger and Bailey worked at the same place is important. It cuts both ways having her title and affiliation there does make her sound more authoratative. But it also suggest a possible conflict of interest. As I state it it is just information those two inferences are left up to the reader.

There is also the issue that many of the critics have their long hifalutin titles listed next to their names in this article. It only make sense to do the same for non-critics and proponents of Blanchardian gender theory. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I recall my reaction to ethicist on Dec. 18 very well. Perhaps you forgot. I now notice that I missed your snappy retort there however, where you assert that "The word ethicist is in her job title." If that's so, then it's OK; just be sure to reference a reliable source. Dicklyon (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok so you agreed on Northwestern but not on ethecist. Well Guess this has to go unelss I can find....this "Medical Ethicist Alice Dreger To Deliver C. P. Snow Lecture At Ithaca College". Based on that one could argue that her precise title would be "medical ethecist" but I think ethecist suffices.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So are you admitting that it's not her title? And now you want to call her an ethicist because somebody else's headline-writer did? Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Dreger's official position is "Professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and Bioethics".[4] She is described in the media as "an ethics scholar and patients' rights advocate"[5] and "a historian of medicine"[6]. She self-describes as "a medical humanist, writer, speaker, patient advocate, a Guggenheim Fellow, and a Professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and Bioethics"[7].

(Her PhD, for the curious, is in 'History and Philosophy of Science', making her well-qualified to write a history of a science scandal.)

While I'm open to alternatives, I think that "ethicist" [with a lower-case e, please: Northwestern University Ethicist" makes me think that there's only one] is both a reasonable description and a conveniently short title for this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hidden section

In this edit, TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comments out the paragraph on the allegations that Bailey had sex with one of his subjects for the book. Can this really be regarded as irrelevant? It's well sourced, is it not? Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, to use language like "allegation" there should be a law, or at least a rule, broken, were the "allegation" true. No one has made a good case that this is so in this case. The "allegation" can be mentioned, but so should the evidence that it didn't happen, that it is unclear what the specifics were, that Northwestern declined to pursue it, that Juanita was a sex worker who claims to have made $100,000 a year via sex work. In my view this "allegation" is more important as an indication of the kind of tactics that Conway et al. used than it is concerning Bailey's professional ethics.ProudAGP (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's some pretty bizarre lawyering. You mean one can't make an allegation of wrongdoing unless one can prove that there is an existing law that the wrongdoing transgresses? Interesting thesis! Dicklyon (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidently, Dicklyon, you prefer a society in which someone can be accused and punished for doing something that is not against the law? Read the original complaint by Juanita. It does not specify a way in which she was damaged by the alleged (but probably made-up) sexual contact. Jokestress has put forward her own interpretation--something about exploitation. But who cares what Jokestress says about this? What's the specific wrongdoing, and why? You can't just dismiss this issue.ProudAGP (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Dick, I believe that hiring a prostitute is a violation of law in nearly every part of the United States, and so 'were the "allegation" true' , a law might indeed have been broken. However, I think that your broader point is still true: something can be wrong without being illegal, and one can allege wrongdoing without alleging lawbreaking.

Right; and I don't think he was accused of hiring a prostitute, but rather of having sex with a research subject, who by the way also says she is a prostitute. And I hate it when ProudAGP poses such bizarre misinterpretations as if she knows what kind of society I would prefer. Sheesh. I'm not wanting to dismiss the issue, nor interpret it; just report it based on reliable sources; this is wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As for TheRedPenOfDoom's edit, perhaps the editor will provide a more detailed explanation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You know I might just have to recuse myself from this part. I have first hand experience with both of the people involved. My personal impression, not information is that there is no reason Bailey would not have tried that at least once. Why not with a transsexual he knew for many years? Just a couple of months ago I ran into "juanita" and we had a long talk. Not about this though. That said. We talked about religion and how uniquely difficult it is to be a transwomen of color. This I sear to you on the holy Qr'an is true.

This is relevant information. That's all it is information. The allegation wasn't that Bailey had sex with a transsexual, or that he hired a prostitute... The allegation was made that Bailey had sex with a research subject. That as being a well placed middle class white male, privillaged, and revered by the women he treated... That he took advantage of that. That is what I think the real allegation was. Weather that is so or not I don't know. I will never ask either of them if I run into them because asking that would be really akwarad and not my business.

Let's just report the fact that the allegation was made and not make a big deal out of the affair.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

why not? Because of our WP:BLP - we have an allegation that our source says the person making the allegation has provided no evidence to support and that our source says there is evidence to contradict the claims made in the allegation. How is the inclusion of this allegation as supported by this source in any way meeting our policy of "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

http://bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/dreger.html

Deletion of a different section

Oh my god, someone who believes in facts. I totally agree "Do no harm". I have removed the Dreger "Freedom "section all together as it served no purpose . If and when there is some legal or agreed on issue rather than Alice Dregers "conspiracy theory" then it can be included. To this point no one has shown that any conspiracy against Bailey ever existed. The academics that challenged Bailey had every right to since his theories were published. No one has ever shown that what happened to Bailey had anything to do with an intent to do anything beyond rebut Baileys finding. His job or loss of is his own doing. DarlieB (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DarlieB, the published, reliable sources talk at some length about this particular scandal's implications for academic freedom. It's not the opinion of "some amateur investigator"; leaving completely aside Dreger's paper, academic freedom is the first major section of Carey's article in The New York Times, a point raised in The Chronicle of Higher Education, and a major theme among some of the commentaries in Arch Sex Behav (including those who disagree with Bailey).

I have therefore reverted your wholesale deletion of this properly referenced section, and I ask that you not delete it again unless/until you can find any single regular editor of this page (that is, yourself plus another logged-in, clearly non-sockpuppet editor) that also supports its wholesale deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What ? No sorry WAID, you can't make accusations because some newspaper printed a fantasy of some amatuer sleuth . Dreger is not an investigator, Northwestern's investigation was private and unless she broke into those records she knows nothing. SHE A EVEN ADMITS OVER AND OVER SHE DOESN"T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ! Why would you include this other than CREATE controversy ?! Her Investigation was unofficial and totally amateur, prove otherwise ! The fact she was quoted in the NYT means nothing, it's a newspaper , not a scientific journal so stop trying to validate her ravings . Published " does not equal fact (WMD's). Show proof of a conspiracy beyond Dregers fantasy otherwise you have no basis to make accusations of "conspiracy " or infringement of freedom. Baileys book was published and nothing exists to back anything but peoples distain for his methods. The burden of proof is on you to show Dreger has any credibility as an investigator at all.DarlieB (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RSN says that Dreger's Arch Sex Behav paper is a reliable source for this issue. Please restore the information that you, once again, deleted against consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am restoring the section that DarlieB deleted. DarlieB, in my opinion you have become a nuisance, if not a vandal. I believe you should be blocked from editing this page.ProudAGP (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please try and have me blocked. I have no problem defending my assertion of Dregers statements as unofficial, amateur and with no basis of expertise in the field of investigation . It's her personal POV , nothing else . Her own "conclusion" that she did not know what went on invalidates any assumption you try and represent as "fact" Lets have it out before the WP:RSN. Give me a link as I'm happy to challenge anyone who tries to defend her as an "expert"..Show proof of a conspiracy beyond Dregers fantasy otherwise you have no basis to make accusations of "conspiracy " or infringement of freedom. Baileys book was published and nothing exists to back anything but peoples distain for his methods. The burden of proof is on you to show Dreger has any credibility as an investigator at all. Oh yes , and by my account Dregers accusations and the printing of them should be actionable. Now I issue you this challenge, show that Bailey was in ANY WAY silenced. That his book was in ANY WAY repressed. At this point what you are trying to inject is absolute fabrication. You are and have been violating "do no harm" on people living . Please, try and have me blocked as I have NO problem whatsoever defending my edit. Bring it. DarlieB (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) DarlieB, my goal at this moment, with an ArbCom case having been filed and a formal mediation likely to begin, is for you to stop edit warring. Please do not delete the sourced information again until you can get any one established editor to put his/her name to a statement on this page that supports its deletion. That's all I'm asking for: If you can get Dicklyon or Jokestress or any editor at all whose account is old enough that it's probably not a sockpuppet to say that it should be deleted, then I'm willing to put this on hold until the various formal processes are complete.

If you can't, in all of Wikipedia, find a single person willing to say that peer-reviewed articles published in a major scientific journal and feature articles in The New York Times fail to meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, then I ask you to please quit deleting the information until it can be addressed through the various formal processes. Does that sound fair to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: The commentaries on Dreger's paper have made repeated appearances at RSN, and nothing by the uninvolved editors at RSN has ever suggested the least concern about Dreger's paper being unreliable. I was going to add the links, but instead I'll suggest that you find the mediation request, because I'd like you to be involved in it. WhatamIdoing (talk)

Yes I'm just making my case now. If you are so confident it is credible just leave it off until they block me and you can put up all the fabricated fantasy you want. I'm just making my statement now. DarlieB (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Chilling effects

The edit summary in this edit [8] are clearly NOT justifiable reasons for including content in Wikipedia, whatever their value in the "real world" may be. I commented the section out because from the material in the source we used, there is little to no value to the material in this article. Perhaps some other reliable source talks about this incident in a matter that makes an appropriate context for including it in this Wikipedia article, but the current source does not. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that sentence does any harm. It is an ackoledgement that the pressure applied to Bailey did have an effect on him. I suppose it could be constured as a play for sympathy.  :-/ In which case it could be called a self serving self published BLP statedment. But then it has been publishen in an RS so it is not that.  :-\ The point in the section entitled academic freedom seem to be to report on the angle of this controversy which is about academic freedom. Can academics say what they think is true and not fear what could be called persecution? I suppose in some ideal world the answer would be yes. But in the real world words have meanings and consequences. In the humanities and human sciences like psychology in particular the subjects of one's research may not appreciate what is said about them. Do they not have the freedom to express that as well?

I have seen that the freedom of Bailey's critics has been throughly expressed. On wikipedia that has gone as far as policy can allow. I see no reason to not have one little sentence of Bailey's actual reation to the personal attacks against him.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Find a source that talks about how this accusation impacts Baileys academic freedom otherwise it is original research on our part and not allowed. Such a connection is certainly not in the source that I hid.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've split this off from the previous section, because it deals with an entirely separate edit. Pen, if you would comment on your choice to hide the "sex allegations" paragraph in the previous section, I think that Dick would appreciate it.

In general, I think that the section on academic freedom is one of the most important in terms of encyclopedic value, as the impact on academic freedom is why this book and the associated scandals matter to anyone that is not directly affected by the specific subject. Consider, for example, the main underlying thrust of Carey's article in The New York Times. Consider, for example, what another sexologist (who thinks Blanchard's notion is entirely wrong) said:

"I have also been on the receiving end of a withering and unfounded personal attack for my professional writing....I do not believe that Bailey, Dreger, or any researcher should be the recipient of the treatment outlined in the article for presenting his or her beliefs, research, opinions, ideas, etc. Although I strongly disagree with Bailey's conclusions about transsexuality and many of his other professional beliefs, he has the absolute right to present them and not suffer the attacks he has." (emphasis in the original)

Fundamentally, if presenting what you believe about transsexuality (or any complex and controversial subject) means that your family will be attacked and that people will try to put you in jail, can any rational person pretend that this will have no chilling effect at all on the free exchange of ideas and knowledge? I remember reading once (I don't remember the source, alas) about concerns that future sexologists would shy away from doing any sort of research on transsexuality because of this scandal.

Chilling effects happen when people self-censor because the personal cost of speaking their beliefs is perceived as too great. I believe that the fact that Bailey had a miserable two years of dealing with the public humiliation of his children, legal claims, colleagues telling him that they couldn't be seen working together (because it would jeopardize their grant funding), and so forth, really is relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The connection between his statement and "academic freedom"/"chilling effects" is pure conjecture on your part. Find a source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that she was quoting John Bancroft there. Why would a statement like the one above be irrelevant? As for what he says being connected to academic freedom. Writing about the right to write what you think is right is the same thing. WP:NOTOR makes the arguement that simple analysis that any reasonably educated person can make is not OR. The quote is about rights. Rights imply a statement about freedom or lack thereof. Stop with the WP:JUSTA pointing at a policy. Any good faith editor could see that statement is all about academic freedom even if the words don't appear in it verbatim. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The blockquote is from Charles Moser. I'd meant to add a link; it's at PMID 18431627. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's no reason that passage should have been removed. It's clearly relevant, given the source. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC) message truncated and portion leading to side discussion moved to new section

The information in the block quote above by a third party analysing the situation and its effects on "academic freedom" is not something I am challenging. What I am challenging is a Wikipedia editor making the connection that Bailey's statement about the "hardest years of his life" and "academic freedom"/"chilling effect" because such analysis constitutes WP:OR and needs to be removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the (entire relevant section of the) cited source to consider the context that the source places that statement in? It follows a long discussion of academic freedom, and is the journalist's transition from considering the abstract notion of academic freedom and chilling effects thereon, into the specific blow-by-blow actions. We are not connecting it to academic freedom; the journalist did that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have - and while there is no denying that Bailey went through many traumatic events, I will stand by my belief that concluding that Bailey's quote from this source to be about "academic freedom" / "chilling effects" requires analysis and interpretation on the part of a Wikipedia editor. I do not reject the use of the quote in the article, but I do object to its current placement on the grounds of WP:SYN. The analysis implied by its current placement in our article is not directly attributable to analysis made in the source.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well what we have at our disposal for cases like this is WP:NOTOR which is not a policy but a essay about the OR policy which states just what is not OR. It states that compiling facts and information is not OR. The quote you are arguing over was in, I believe either or dregers article or the new york times artilce by Benedict Carey. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's on the first page of Carey's NYT article, immediately after Carey outlines the free speech implications. Dreger says that harrassment is bad, McCloskey says that nobody -- well, almost nobody -- did or said anything that couldn't be considered "fair comment on a book and an author", Carey names the publication date, and then the Bailey quote. I don't see how we can pretend that Carey doesn't consider this statement related to academic freedom, but I'm willing to consider moving it to other locations in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Title again

I agree that there's no reason that passage should have been removed. It's clearly relevant, given the source. On the other hand, since neither HFarmer not WhatamIdoing has corrected the "Ethicist" error that I pointed out above, it doesn't seem that there's much interest among editors in getting this article right, just in spinning it in favor of the Northwestern sexologists. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dick that's not an error me and whatamidoing both provided links that show "Ethecist" is in her job title. This one, and this one All I have to do is add those citations to the article. --Hfarmer (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You did show that she has "bioethics" in her job title, after I challenged you enough times, but I had missed that recent addition to this talk page. I still feel that "ethicist" is a term that you've added to inflate her image, and that "professor" would be more appropriate. As to your assertion that here PhD in "history and philosophy of science" makes her qualified to write this kind of "history" that she has done here is absurd. Calling her a historian would be even more misleading than calling her an ethicist. Dicklyon (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When Dick tried selling his opposition to "historian" during our mediated discussion, the number of editors agreeing with him was...zero. Because neither Dick nor I edit this page, I would recommend, Hfarmer, not to waste overly much effort trying to please either one of us.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that under advisement.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected the capitalization error, but perhaps the rest of this conversation could be carried on above, instead of getting it confused here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to her correct full title, since that's at least arguably less biased than your camp's interpretation as "ethicist". I left out "part-time." As for not editing these articles, that agreement has recently been made impossible by Hfarmer, so I pulled out of it, thereby releasing James as well. Dicklyon (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's even more than I would have wanted but if it makes sense to have all of that to you so be it.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Also you mention "part time" The quote from just below her name on that page says "Professor of Clinical Medical Humanities & Bioethics" nor does the word part time appear in the body text of her faculty page. To me the alternative to having dreger's title is to strip all titles from everyone named in this article. Which like not having Dreger's title would inadvertently hide the very suggestive fact that she and Bailey work for the same university.

It's more than I would have wanted, too, but it's less biased than "ethicist". As to the part-time, as I said, I left that out; it was only on her personal blog that she's only a 20% time professor, without benefits. It makes sense to consider what kinds of descriptors to use for people, that accurately reflect their role and relationship to the topic. I don't think the fact that Dreger is expressing ethics opinions is a reason to dignify her as an ethicist; quite the contrary. Professor would have been OK, as Cantor and I had previously agreed, and leaving our her co-affiliation with Bailey could hardly be called a neutral action. Dicklyon (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research/synthesis about IRBs

WhatamIdoing has been opining a lot about the "chilling effects on free speech, as measured in costs of human spirit," etc. I argue that all this stuff added to this article is WP:OR, specifically WP:SYN-- rhetoric to make it sound as if this issue is settled. WAID cites a Wilson Chronicle article, which says:

The IRB determines whether a professor needs to obtain the informed consent of research subjects. That involves telling the subjects the purpose of the research, as well as its potential risks and benefits to them.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Bailey said he did not want to talk about the two women's assertions. But in an e-mail message to The Chronicle, the professor wrote that he had "never considered Anjelica et al. research subjects." He added: "I was writing about my own life experiences among transsexual women."

The jacket of Mr. Bailey's book, however, directly contradicts that statement. It says the work is "based on his original research" and is "grounded firmly in the scientific method."

Further, several of the commentaries on the Dreger "history" (which are being generally suppressed here) indicate that the debate is not settled, even though WAID seems to think it is. Wikipedia articles should report the actual status of such debates, specifically in this article as it pertains to the book. Northwestern has made statements regarding these matters, but have only discussed the "federal definition" and made no comment on any other definitions. If we are going to have information in here about the IRB complaints (which is fine), we should not be coming to our own conclusions and should report the range of published opinions. Jokestress (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that IRB activity is a matter of federal regulation? The federal definition, as understood and enforced by OHRP, is the only definition that can possibly matter for IRBs. Note that "IRB-qualified" has absolutely nothing to do with other concepts, such as "ethics" and "appropriateness". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that other editors read the entire piece, and not just selected quotes. It's available online (search on the title). The part I found most interesting was this:

Many scholars believe that IRB's, which were originally established to oversee medical research, have overstepped their bounds. "My concern is the mission creep of IRB's into the social sciences and even the humanities," says Matthew Finkin, a professor of law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Mr. Finkin says that applying a biomedical model to other disciplines creates problems.
Joan C. Sieber, a professor of psychology at California State University at Hayward and an expert on how IRB's operate, shares Mr. Finkin's concerns. She says it sounds as if Mr. Bailey's critics are using IRB regulations "as a tool" to attack him.

As I read it, that's two people with excellent credentials for having an opinion on the proper range of IRB regulation, and both of them (representing, by the way, 100% of independent people in the article) consider the application of IRB rules to chatting with people in a bar to be highly suspect (although Sieber thinks that Bailey should have let the IRB tell him that it was unnecessary). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And Sieber's viewpoint was also shared by several people in the 2008 peer commentaries, which is why we should include it here. As Moser said (I believe you quoted him on one of these pages recently) "the allegations were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct." That viewpoint has always seemed relevant and worthy of note in this article. The IRB aspect was only part of the reason all this happened. The ethics of gatekeeping in exchange for personal gain was also at issue. Jokestress (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This section is really WhatamIdoing's doings. Completely synthesized. The recently added "sourced" statements are crazy; the first, "Whether federal regulations required professors to obtain formal approval from a university Institutional Review Board (IRB) before interview people was uncertain at the time," being totally her own interpretation of the Robin Wilson article, not something the article says, and the second, "the US Department of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the Oral History Association and American Historical Association, issued a formal statement that taking oral histories, unstructured interviews (as if for a piece of journalism), collecting anecdotes, and similar free speech activities do not constitute IRB-qualified research, and were never intended to be covered by clinical research rules," being true and well sourced but without any source to say that its relevant to the topic under discussion. Sure, it's OK for her to read it as being obviously related; it's just not OK to build a wikipedia article on that interpretation. Dicklyon (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Again Dick let me refer you to WP:NOTOR which is the general wikipedia communities consensus on how to interpret that policy. All whatamIdoing has done is summarize information and gather it under a common heading. There is no regulation that says that every thing in an artcile must be a quote. None at all. Take a note from Jokestress about how to go about this.

Aj in your absensce we went through another Reliable source notice board round over these peer commentaries. This was done because in your absense Dick and a few other users brought up that issue again. Do you want to have another go at it? As I did with DickLyon I would remind you that both the first and second times I argued for the inclusion of those commentaries IF we use them to characterize the commentors reactions to the book and Dreger's article they should be included. A sort of extended use of the BLP policy towards reliable sources. Such was my arguement. This time the only uninvolved editors who supported inclusion of the commentaries did so based on the assumption that the commentators were all other academic experts in the field. Which is not true in this case and it would not be right to get inclusion based on a falsehood.

However... well let's look at this from the perspective of James Cantor. Which is that this was an open call and that literally anyone could have written a commentary. You know I read Dr. Conway's website on a somewhat regular basis, about once a month if not more often. I saw that these commentaries were being requested there. I sent an email offering to write a commentary and recieved no response. (I felt that was propper because of how I am positioned in all of this. In proximity to all these goings on, and writing the Wikipedia articles on the topic which were briefly mentioned. I was going to take the position that people on both sides have behaved badly. As well as express what I thought about the sexual allegations, Likley talk about the effect this book had on online conversations, how battle lines were drawn.) Suppose I had just went ahead and sent a commentary instead of asking if Zucker would have been interseted in one, and he published it. Would you, Jokestress, want to include info from such a commentary if I had written it? Because there is no reason I could not have. If the answer is no then you should really reconsider your position. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If the material being collected were clearly relevant to the topic, which is this case is the Bailey book and its subjects and the complaints against Bailey, then it wouldn't be a problem to compile it into a section. But in this case, WhatamIdoing has taken off and done research on the applicability of IRB regulations, in an apparent attempt to bolster Bailey's case that he didn't contravene any regulations. There's nothing that I've seen in the cited sources to connect that recent ruling on IRB applicability to the Bailey case. Or am I missing something? Did someone in a WP:RS point out this new decision in connection with Bailey? If so, then sourcing to that might make it OK. The source cited for "Whether federal regulations required professors to obtain formal approval from a university Institutional Review Board (IRB) before interview people was uncertain at the time" (the Robin Wilson article that you can consult at [9]), is mostly about retrospective analysis of the role of an IRB, and doesn't say a thing to suggest that the need to get approval from an IRB was "uncertain." That's an "OR" type of biased deduction from what it says. And the next bit, sourced to [here http://alpha.dickinson.edu/oha/org_irb.html], is an interterpretation of a more recent event as exhonerating Bailey; maybe it does prove that the IRB should not have been cared or been involved, but it's certainly an OR type interpretation of a selected fact with no sourced relationship to the subject. It's best to omit such non-encyclopedic syntheses from biograpies, and just report what's relevant and verifiable in reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Declaring a mention of the actual rules related to IRB in the social sciences to be SYNTH is a remarkably idiotic dispute, especially among people that are supposed to know the basic sources better than me. The only reason that I know OHRP's statement even exists is because it is specifically mentioned in Dreger's paper:

When I put my methodology to the Northwestern IRB, the IRB agreed with me that my work on this project is not IRB-qualified (Eileen Yates to Dreger, p.e.c., July 31, 2006), i.e., that, although I have obtained data from living persons via interactions with them, what I am doing here is neither systematic nor generalizable in the scientific sense. Had the IRB disagreed with me on this point—which, knowing the regulations, they did not—I would have pointed them specifically to the 2003 clarification by the U.S. Office for Human Research Protection (OHRP) that ‘‘oral history interviewing projects in general do not involve the type of research defined by [Department of Health and Human Services] regulations and are therefore excluded from IRB oversight’’ (Ritchie & Shopes, 2003). The Oral History Association sought this clarification in response to what many scholars have come to call ‘‘mission creep’’ on the part of IRBs, i.e., the move on the part of many IRBs to claim regulatory rights to work that was never intended by the federal government to count as human subjects research (Center for Advanced Study, 2005; see also American Association of University Professors, 2006). The Oral History Association and the American Historical Association have gotten fed up enough with IRB mission creep that they recommend historians like me not even consult with their IRBs when planning to take oral histories; they advise scholars instead to simply inform their Chairs and Deans of the 2003 clarification (Ritchie & Shopes, 2003).

There you have it: the specific points, the specific document named, and the specific connection to this specific dispute. We could also add that the specific reason that this sex allegation never got anywhere is because Northwestern also concluded that JSM was not a research subject in any IRB-qualified sense. Note that Dreger's paper goes on rather at length about this, and I've only pasted a small part of it here. I particularly recommend to your attention the next paragraph, beginning ""In terms of how this all applies to the claim that Bailey was violating IRB regulations..."

Now if you are really determined that presenting information that is directly out a published journal article is a WP:SYNTH violation, then I invite you to post it at WP:NORN. But if you, like me, think it would be rather embarrassing for experienced editors to claim SYNTH over something that is stated in plain, direct language in a major source, then let's stop wrangling over this already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your "mention of the actual rules related to IRB in the social sciences" is WP:SYNTH because you've tied it to the question of charges that Bailey "failed to obtain Institutional Review Board (IRB) permission for human subjects" but haven't said how it connects, except the general implication maybe the charges weren't valid. Now that you've explained that the connection is via Dreger, your intention is more clear. You could make the point more fairly by citing Dreger for the opinion that since the IRB didn't require her to get approval to interview people, maybe they wouldn't have required Bailey to, either. Still, it's a bit of a stretch; but you can't mention these things that happened later without saying that Dreger made the connection in her synthesis of a defense for Bailey. If it's not your synthesis, it's hers, and needs to be attributed as such. Dicklyon (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress repeats two ridiculous arguments that should be rejected outright. First, she repeats the tired argument that the publishser's blurb on the book jacket says that the book is "based on [Bailey's] original research." While it does indeed say this, the idea that this implies that everything in the book is his original research is ridiculous. If it were to imply that, then someone should accuse Bailey of plagiarizing all the other researchers he wrote about. Obviously, some of the stuff in the book is Bailey's original research. Obviously some of it is not.

The second silly argument she is that Charles Moser's quote (from his commentary on Dreger) should be included: "the allegations were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct." While I understand she would like to have soeone saying as much, the quotation cannot be considered to mean what Jokestress wants it to say, and Moser's statement cannot be considered to have merit.

First, Moser contradicts himself. From Moser's own commentary: "None of my following remarks should be construed as supportive of them, their accusations against Bailey, or their tactics."

Second, consider Dreger's response to Moser: "Moser says Northwestern University’s investigation ‘basically concluded that Bailey had not violated any professional, ethical, legal, or moral standards; no penalties were levied.’ That’s not what I found. It’s possible Moser knows something I don’t know, but I doubt it." And: "How Moser could conclude the allegations made against Bailey were ‘basically true’ is beyond me, and apparently beyond the scope of his article to explain in any evidence-based fashion.

Jokestress, you have an unwaivering level of intellectual integrity.ProudAGP (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth, is our motto here. I was quoting two reliable sources. Another personal attack, and it will be Checkuser time for you... Jokestress (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dick, you have to go read the source. Dreger discusses this issue at significant length. I've pasted above only the tiny snippet that connects the existing sources (which, you will recall, I've put in the article not to prove anything about the statement (which was uncontested before the refs were added), but for the convenience of editors who keep asking for them).

Although Dreger's paper answers your objections completely, I'm pretty sure that pasting the entire long discussion into this page would both irritate some editors and violate Wikipedia's copyright policies. It's freely available. The link's in the article. Download the thing and start in the second column of page 35, at the italicized text Did Bailey conduct IRB-qualified human subjects research without IRB oversight? Don't stop reading until you've gotten at least as far as

Given all this, we have to conclude that, in his interaction with the people whose personal stories appear in TMWWBQ—of whom apparently only two (Kieltyka and Juanita) have complained to Northwestern University—J. Michael Bailey did not conduct IRB-qualified human subjects research without IRB oversight.

and ideally not until you've gotten at least as far as,

In other words, even if any sexual relations occurred between Bailey and Juanita on March 22, 1998, they were not improper relations by any reading of ethics-of-sex-with-research-subject because Juanita was not Bailey’s research subject in March 1998, when she claims the relations happened.

ProudAGP, you also might like to read that section, because Dreger also discusses Jokestress's favorite book cover blurb (page 37 in the PDF, page 402 on paper) and the endless harping by activists about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be much less objectionable to cite Dreger for her opinion, if that's the connection, which you now agree it is. Then we could also mention the responses to Dreger with alternative opinions. Or would that not suit your purpose in editing here? Or perhaps not enough "fun" for you? Dicklyon (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You can add the Dreger ref if you like: I want the links to the actual docs to remain, because I'm tired of finding them every time an editor here wanders down the "if you chat with a researcher in a bar, then you're a research subject" path. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress, "verifiability" doesn't just mean that you can check that someone said a string of words. It includes that they don't also say something completely opposite in the same source. You continue to insult the intelligence, and waste the time of, other editors here. Furthermore, you are in violation of WP:CHeckuser: "The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute." You are clearly trying to intimidate me here. Furthermore, you have a record (including recently) of publicizing information regarding IP addresses of those you consider your enemies. See, for example: http://www.tsroadmap.com/notes/index.php/site/transkidsus_hoax_site_ip_analysis_pre_2005/ . Because of this violation and because, frankly, I am frightened of your ability to control yourself, I have no choice but to notify an administrator.ProudAGP (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota's quite correct removal of my review of TMWWBQ

Cerejota just removed the page's mention of my book review of TMWWBQ (see here). In my opinion, she was entirely correct to do so. I previously brought it to the attention of the other interested editors that citing me might not be appropriate (see here and here). My review did not not undergo any sort of editorial process, and does not in my opinion meet the WP standard for an RS. Although other editors disagreed with me, it certainly was not appropriate for me to edit it. I will still not be making edits on it, but I thought it relevant to indicate my perspective here.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

James Cantor's review is blurbed on the sales page at the publisher's official site [10], which is a reliable source for this article. His involvement is also noted on Bailey's page about the book [11], and his direct role in the controversy is noted in other sources, too (it's discussed three times in his pal Dreger's 2008 paper). His reasons for not wanting it in this article are to downplay his direct and extensive involvement in this controversy since its earliest days, in hopes of avoiding WP:COI sanctions enjoining him from editing here. Jokestress (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You two are funny. It's WP:NOTABILITY if my review is cited and WP:COI if it's not. Meanwhile, it's you two who are putting it in and taking it out, while I keep leaving the decision to other editors and not touching it at all.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually WP:N, which doesn't say whether any given fact belongs in an article. Jokestress would doubtless tell you that the argument is being made from WP:NPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability is obviously irrelevant; so is COI, since Cantor isn't the guy putting it in or taking it out, as he points out. Personally, I think it should be in, as it helps to clarify that all these sexologists stick together and that Cantor is one of the principals in this mess; but I don't have strong feelings either way. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Academic freedom section

Back around December 18-24 we left this discussion unresolved, and now there's edit warring over the section again. User:DarlieB removes it and User:WhatamIdoing puts it back, repeatedly. Since I and DarlieB think it's a BLP violation in its present form, and since it was created pretty much by WhatamIdoing, it would be more consistent with WP:BLP to leave it out until we arrive at a consensus about it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The material in question has now been restored by three separate editors, but are we talking about the same section? The text contains four sentences, which I've separated here:

1. The controversy surrounding Bailey's book has been cited as an example of infringement of academic and intellectual freedom and freedom of speech by Northwestern University professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics Alice Dreger who wrote a "history" of the controversy.
2. According to Dreger in an interview with The New York Times, "What happened to Bailey is important, because the harassment was so extraordinarily bad and because it could happen to any researcher in the field. 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... The bottom line is that they tried to ruin this guy, and they almost succeeded."
3. Bailey called the two years following its publication "the hardest of my life."
4. Twenty-three peer commentaries were published in reaction to Dreger's article in Archives of Sexual Behavior.

The text then contains (1) an assertion that Dreger wrote a paper that discussed academic freedom; (2) a quotation directly attributed to Dreger and that she did, apparently, actually say, or at least which is consistent with her other writings and which she has failed to deny; (3) a statement by Bailey that it's pretty miserable to be publicly attacked that he did, apparently, actually say, or at least which is consistent with his other writings and which he has failed to deny; (4) a statement that 23 peer commentaries were published.

The material is apparently accurate (according to the highest-quality sources we have) and contains, per BLP, "what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves." I know how it fails to support DarlieB's POV, but where exactly is the biographical violation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

W, the number of editors helping you here is not at issue; neither is (by me at least) the verifiability of the statements and quotes the make up the section. The balance of the section is what makes it "unfair"; giving so much voice to Dreger's colleague who has made herself a principal in the disputes by campaigning with Bailey on radio and such about this is just too far out of line. You chose to focus on Dreger's claim that the dispute has a significantly notable "academic freedom" component. Yet you've resisted mentioning that the commentaries pretty much all disagree with her on many points, including some on this specific one. I think a good step would be to add a quote from one that disagrees with her on this specific issue. I've put one such quote on User talk:DarlieB in my discussion with her about that. I don't know if that's enough to address her concerns; let's wait and see what she had to say.

As for including Dreger's accusation "they tried to ruin this guy" and things like that, even though "they" are not named in this section, the statement would need to be backed up by secondary sources, wouldn't it, to avoid violating WP:BLP? Dicklyon (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The claim that this scandal has a significant "academic freedom" component is not solely Dreger's opinion, although that's all that we're presenting at the moment. It is the opinion of many people, including Dreger, two unrelated newspapers, and several of those commentaries. In fact, the set of people that (A) consider having nasty attacks on your family and people lobbying for criminal charges for writing letters and efforts to have you fired for abusing (alleged, but not actual) research subjects (etc.) to not have any potential effects on academic freedom and that (B) were not actively involved in making said attacks in 2003 (that is, before Dreger's paper was even contemplated) is, as far as I can make out, the null set. If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to read any non-self-published reliable source that supports your view. (By the way, the Carey piece -- where the Dreger quote is found -- is a secondary source.)

Please remember that RSN's decision that the 'peer commentaries' are self-published sources is not my fault, and that I'm as much bound by that decision as anyone else. On this specific issue, none of the peer commentaries are acceptable: Not one is published by a person who is an expert in issues of free speech or academic freedom. We therefore can't use them on the issue of academic freedom.

Finally, as I understand BLP, the views of small minorities are not required. It's not like Journalism 101, where you're supposed to get a quotation from both 'sides', even if that means finding someone at the Flat Earth Society because you're talking about the shape of the earth. Dreger's opinion is the clearly dominant opinion. Additionally, it is carefully presented as Dreger's opinion, not the sole Truth™.

I don't think that this section is perfect, but I (and apparently others) think that it meets all the requirements of BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that your opinions on the section are based on your opinions about the "real world"; but really what matters here is wikipedia policy on verifiability and such. As it stands, it's terribly one-sided; let's include the other side if you think the topic is worth keeping. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit of balance from Moser's commentary; I don't know if it's enough, but it's a start. I also tuned up the rest a bit, as it was all too heavy on Dreger and a bit of editorialization based on her POV. Small changes, but I think they help. Comments? Here are the four diffs together. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think:

1. that the first Moser statement isn't about academic freedom and thus doesn't belong in this section,
2. that the second Moser statement doesn't fairly represent his entire opinion on the subject (cherry picking), and
3. that per Wikipedia's rules about verifiability, Moser's letter cannot be cited on the issue of academic freedom because Moser not an expert on academic freedom (or anything remotely related to it).

Have you not been able to find any properly published, reliable sources that assert that none of the anti-Bailey efforts hurt academic freedom? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's the logic you want to go by, we should take out the whole section, as Dreger is also clearly not a competent expert on such things. Dicklyon (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

She is demonstrably an expert on ethics and on the activism of sexual minority groups.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)