Jump to content

Talk:Irreversible Damage/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

ROGD

@Newimpartial and GreenMeansGo: Can you discuss whether Shrier "addresses" or "endorses" ROGD here rather than edit warring? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't figure I needed to, but I guess I'm invoking BLP as an exception to EW. I've removed quite a bit content from this article. The onus is not on me to add sources or content that supports this particular wording. GMGtalk 19:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The former wording was "supports", but I am now proposing "endorses" as potentially more clear. It is evident from the book, her interview, and her WSJ opinion piece that she is endorsing the ROGD hypothesis as a "real thing". If ever something was BLUESKY, this is. Newimpartial (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Nope. BLP. Find a source, or I will remove the content again under a BLP exemption. If you don't like it then take it up at BLPN. "Just go read stuff" doesn't count. GMGtalk 19:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
It is clear from practically every source we have here that Shrier is presupposing the existence of the "ROGD" phenomenon that Littman imagines. If you need specific quotes, this WSJ piece of hers explicitly endorses the hypothesis: ROGD is a social contagion that comes on suddenly in adolescence, afflicting teens who’d never exhibited any confusion about their sex... Like other social contagions, such as cutting and bulimia, ROGD overwhelmingly afflicts girls. But unlike other conditions, this one—though not necessarily its sufferers—gets full support from the medical community. The excerpt of her book she herself published in Quillette as an oped is also fairly clear in its support of Littman and her hypothesis. Srey Srostalk 20:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Cool. Please appropriately add that somewhere in the article to support the wording in the lead. I don't care about the content. I looked at the cited sources, and looked at the article, and it wasn't there. GMGtalk 20:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Among others, citation 14 from the current article version - her WSJ opinion piece - is quite transparent on this point. Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I also think it is transparently obvious that Shrier endorses and supports ROGD. I think your objection is roughly the equivalent of asking where exactly Prince Charles supports monarchism. Loki (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Negative. The lead summarizes the body. If it ain't in the content in the body then it shouldn't be in the lead. I don't really care if we're talking about corn or coal. This isn't a partisan statement. It's just WP. GMGtalk 21:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
It isn't my fault if editors have whitewashed the book summary, which is overly dependent on the PRIMARY source in any case. Shrier explicitly promotes the ROGD hypothesis, as both her promoters and her critics state quite explicitly. Newimpartial (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Cool. It needs to be in the body or it needs to be taken out of the lead. This is not partisan. It's just MoS. GMGtalk 23:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I have FIXED it. Newimpartial (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

First sentence of summary section

GreenMeansGo, you reverted my change to the first sentence of the summary section because the entire section is presumed attributed to her. you could equally add "she states that" or "she said that" to the entire section. I agree - and that's pretty much what we have right now. Every sentence in the section, except the first one, is some variation of "Shrier/She describes/discusses/says/states x." I think that's important, because the summary is of the book, not of what led to the book (which would probably go in the background section). Shrier doesn't [begin] to investigate adolescent-onset gender dysphoria after being contacted by the mother of a young adult in the book, she states that that's how she began investigating it. With the current wording it reads like we're saying in wikivoice that she began investigating for that reason, which (in addition to being a potential WP:PRIMARY issue) doesn't fit into the summary section or make sense with the sentences that follow it. ezlevtlk
ctrbs 23:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence should have some attribution, both because of Primary concerns (she might be lying) and because under the title § Summary it either seems out of place or reads like Shrier is a character in the book. Srey Srostalk 00:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've just gone ahead and undone myself. I'm afraid I don't have time to get into the debate until probably next week sometime. GMGtalk 12:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Should the article mention that ROGD is unrecognized by professional institutions?

I recently added an edit (diff) mentioning that the concept of rapid onset gender dysphoria lacks recognition from professional institutions. It was reverted (diff) on the basis that this has already been discussed. Scrolling through the talk page, I do see that there has been a lot of discussion about the leading paragraphs, as well as discussion about ROGD, but I don't think that the above discussions are necessarily applicable to this edit.

The wording of the content I added is verbatim from the Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy article, and the wording on that article is itself verbatim from the source cited both there & in my suggested revision.

Considering I only added half a sentence, it should be pretty easy to get a consensus on if it's appropriate.

Is it acceptable to modify the sentence The book endorses the contentious theory of rapid onset gender dysphoria. to instead read The book endorses the contentious concept of rapid onset gender dysphoria, which is not recognized by any major professional institution.?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vanilla Wizard: Support Previous discussion came to the consensus that it was admissible to mention that the theory was not endorsed by any major and relevant bodies. I myself added it in a few different forms before it was "restructured" away. It's also a true fact supported by multiple citations (WPATH and the Turban article), and seems WP:DUE. Bravetheif (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I also support this edit. It's clearly supported by RSes and it's WP:DUE since ROGD is a major topic of the book. Loki (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Mention how Regnery is a politically conservative publisher?

I think that adding that Regnery is a politically and socially conservative publisher (who has published for other anti-trans activists e.g. Ben Shapiro) would be a good idea. I'm not sure how it should be slotted in though. Would it be suited for the lead or lower in the article, if anywhere? Casspedia (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s currently mentioned in the § Background and publication history section, but if we have RS for more detailed coverage or if you think it’d be better located elsewhere feel free to. Srey Srostalk 03:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Describing current status of ROGD

I recently changed the phrase used for this from "contentious concept" to "unsubstantiated concept" while adding details on the SBM review. This was to better describe the current status of ROGD, and this part was changed back. Apologies I was unaware of the process for changes like this. To start the reason for using "unsubstantiated" is that even Littman refers to ROGD as a "hypothesis" so there is no doubt as to the lack of evidence for it. In fact selecting a specific subset of parents to speculate on the timing of adolescent GD and whether they attribute social contact to it, is what Andrew Wakefield did when asking parents to speculate on the onset of autism symptoms and whether they attribute the MMR vaccine to them. The point of contention is the reason for the rise in adolescent referrals (as there was on the increase in autism diagnoses) and for this there are many competing hypotheses. This state of affairs is common although politically charged in this case. What we can unequivocally say is that ROGD is one such hypothesis and there is no credible evidence to support it. I consulted the article on the Wuhan lab to see what it says about the hypothesis of a lab origin for COVID-19 and it uses the phrase "unsubstantiated" so I copied that over to this article. I note some debate earlier about making the point that ROGD is not recognised which may amount to the same thing (it is unrecognised because it is unsubstantiated) so a wider simplification is possible although I declined to do that at the time. TBH I don't really know what happens next but this records the reason. Kaha91 (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Unsubstantiated" is POV and the argument above makes no reference to reliable sources. Obviously, Littman and supporters do feel that the hypothesis is substantiated via the reports they studied. Critics disagree, but the point is that "contentious" is the most neutral descriptor. Crossroads -talk- 02:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Debunking of Science-Based Medicine articles

Since the series of articles in Science-Based Medicine following their retraction of a favorable review of this book is heavily cited in this article, these detailed rebuttals by Jesse Singal might be of interest:

*Dan T.* (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible source to include

Recent article by Shrier about reception of the book [[1]] which MIGHT have information worth adding to the page. I don't have time to go through it at the moment, so posting in case someone else might beat me to it.-Pengortm (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Request consensus to add book to Further reading

I respectfully submit that Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality by Helen Joyce be added to Further reading. The author, who holds a PhD in mathematics from University College London, is Britain editor at The Economist, where she has held several senior positions, including Finance editor and International editor. Since its publication on July 15, 2021, her book has received highly favorable reviews in leading publications.

The Telegraph, which Wikipedia tells us "generally has a reputation for high-quality journalism," featured a 5-star review by Kathleen Stock, OBE, professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, and author of Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism (2021). Stock calls Trans a "superlative critical analysis of trans activism."

Writing in The Times, which according to Wikipedia "is considered a newspaper of record in the UK," regular columnist David Aaronovitch explains that "Joyce [examines] a new ideology about gender. This holds that biological sex is as much a 'social construct' as the idea of gender is. One benefit of Joyce's book is its intellectual clarity and its refusal to compromise. So she takes apart this ideology of gender with a cold rigour."

On Twitter, Abigail Shrier herself called Trans a "wonderful book" and commented that "Girls are in bad shape. Women's rights are under attack. With unmatched clarity, Joyce explains how we got here and what to do about it."

For the record, I added this entry on July 25, but User:Elli reverted it, questioning the book's relevance without indicating whether or not they'd read it. I have, and feel strongly that it belongs here. Basketcase2022 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Basketcase2022: I again suggest you look at what further reading sections are for. MOS:FURTHER says An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. (emphasis mine). The book you suggest would not help readers learn about the subject of this article - the book Irreversible Damage - and is therefore inappropriate in a further reading section. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The subject of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality is the same as the subject of Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. Each book helps the reader better understand the other book. Why do you think Abigail Shrier recommends Helen Joyce's book—because it's irrelevant? Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Basketcase2022: them being on the same subject is irrelevant here. That might make it appropriate in a "See also" section if it had a Wikipedia article. It's not appropriate for "Further reading" as someone wanting to learn more about the book Irreversible Damage would not be well-served by reading Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Right; the purpose of a Further reading section is not to provide bias confirmation for readers by directing them to tangentially-related material written from the same POV. We may in some sense be dopamine purveyors, but not with those cheap hits. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Another critique of Science-Based Medicine, and a Canadian Federation of Library Associations reaction to challenges of this book

*Dan T.* (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The first "source" is another blog post; what's up with that?
The second one is an actual intellectual freedom brief, but doesn't really say anything significant about the book that I can see. I'm not sure how we could use it for the article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Revisions

The addition of Jesse Singal's rebuttal of the Science-Based Medicine articles has been repeatedly removed from this page. This seems odd, considering that the addition of this recent context does not violate any Wikipedia guidelines. His article forced Science-based medicine to make a number of corrections, though, to date, they have not fixed everything. If this information has been removed by an editor for partisan or ideological purposes, it would be deeply distressing. If the purpose of the removal is for something other than personal bias on the part of the editor, I would like to ask for a legitimate explanation as to why the info was removed.

Personally, I can see no reason that the removal of Jesse Singal's reporting is legitimate. It adds important context for the reader as to the quality of Science-Based Medicine's critique of Irreversible Damage. The referenced article can be found and examined here: [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.3.210 (talk)

The source you tried to add is a weblog. Do you have a policy-based reason to include it? The way you tried to do it seemed likely to confuse the reader by presenting self-published "rebuttals" to reliable publications as though they were all on the same level of authority. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
SBM doesn't strike me as particularly reliable given the large number of errors in their articles and the obvious ideological bias, as well as the editor's propensity to make straw man arguments about gender critical people. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Not that consensus can’t change, but the summary at WP:RSP is that SBM is generally considered reliable with the caveat that it isn’t MEDRS. It seems reasonably used in this article. The claims are clearly attributed, and it’s talking more about the actions SBM took rather than saying in Wikivoice that their response was correct. POLITANVM talk 04:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I do not think anyone is objecting to the use of SBM on the page. It is the fact that, because this book is contentious, every effort to provide the reader with as unbiased a view of the available information should be taken. In my estimation, contextualizing the absolutely legitimate critique of this one particular SBM article is not only valuable but needed, given how controversial the topic is and the significantly egregious errors in the articles. Ending the paragraph with SBM's articles to this topic gives them an air of conclusiveness and definitiveness, which they do not have in this case. Including a small note of Singal's critique allows the reader to see that these issues are not settled. This reflects the inherent truth of the situation, more than SBM stamping the entire episode with something akin to a royal seal, avoids bias, and provides the reader with valuable context with which they can explore and decide for themselves. -MN 10:42, 22 July 2021 (EST)
Is there evidence that we have an absolutely legitimate critique of this one particular SBM article? What it seems that we have is a blog that one IP editor happens to favor - that doesn't usually translate as absolutely legitimate critique. If it were, we would normally have a RS saying so. Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Have you read Singal's article? It is perfectly legitimate to any reasonable person, so much so that SBM made several corrections already. I think you are using language here, like your seemingly pejorative use of the word "blog," which reveals that you have a significant bias in this situation. This bias is precisely why I think the inclusion of Singal's critique should be noted on the page. -MN 10:53, 22 July 2021 (EST)
Yes, I read the blog post, which managed to balance sloppiness and pedantry in equal measure. That isn't bias speaking, except a certain bias I have for clean writing when it comes to difficult topics. In any case, it isn't a genre of source policy suggests that we include in WP articles, and you haven't offered any policy-based support for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Like Newimpartial said, the bias here is for Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, which are pretty clear on the reliability of self-published blogs (see WP:BLOGS). As a friendly note, you may find WP:THREAD to be a helpful guide for indenting and signing talk page posts. POLITANVM talk 15:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Singal isn't just some rando though. He's a journalist who has done a lot of writing on trans issues including for major RS such as The Atlantic. The recently added text (These articles have, in turn, received criticism for their own errors and false information.) was, I agree, inappropriate, since it puts a contentious claim (that the articles contain errors and false information) in wikivoice. But I think it's appropriate to have a sentence about the Singal criticism using in-text attribution. If the claim is something like "Journalist Jesse Singal published a criticism of SBM's coverage, stating that X, Y, and Z." then there's no issue of verifiability. The only question is of WP:DUE weight, but given that the author is an established journalist with experience in this subject area, I don't think it's undue (though it would be even more of a slam dunk if Singal's criticism was itself covered in independent RS). Colin M (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
If by (not) just some rando you mean someone with a clear pro-desistance POV on trans issues, I agree. While the summer 2018 cover piece in The Atlantic wasn't labelled "Opinion", the fact that The Atlantic had to run a series of critical responses after publishing it shows me that it is clearly opinion-ated. I am not saying that Singal's views need necessarily be excluded from this article, but he doesn't have the kind of recognized expertise on trans issues that the WP:SPS carve-out for experts would apply. We need a better source than this blog, I'm afraid, even for an attributed statement. Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:SPS is a facet of verifiability. But there is no question that Singal's article verifies a claim of the form I mentioned above ("Journalist Jesse Singal published a criticism of SBM's coverage, stating that X, Y, and Z."). SPS would only be relevant if we were repeating a claim from the Singal piece itself (e.g. to take a random example, "Physicians Novella and Gorski have no firsthand experience with youth gender medicine") and citing Singal. Colin M (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The section WP:SPS is a subsection of WP:NOTRELIABLE, and specifies, Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as ... personal websites ... and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. It also states if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Normally, self-published commentators become DUE when they are covered in Reliable Sources, which is not the case here, so I just haven't seen why the clear cues in WP:SPS should not be followed in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, the creation of an article on Jesse Singal has not made this self-published material more appropriate for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Colin M. Singal clearly has substantial expertise in this area and per WP:SPS “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications” we should include this, but with clear attribution to Singal. Yes, Singal’s perspectives are not liked by many as pointed out by Newimpartial—but this does not discredit his expertise in the area. Indeed, we need to be careful to not exclude views because they are unpopular--especially in light of the substantial number of activists who shape the discourse on this topic.-Pengortm (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
What is the evidence for this expertise? This has been alleged, but no evidence of recognition as a subject-matter expert in a relevant domain has been put forward here. Newimpartial (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Singal is pretty clearly a specialized journalist in the sciences--especially related to psychology and trans issues. The general expertise in science and psychology can be seen here [2]. Even a critic of his acknowledges that "Jesse Singal has become a leading public intellectual and one of the most prominent journalists covering trans issues, including but not limited to adolescent transition." [3]. Another critic notes " Singal is considered one of the leading voices in journalism on trans issues" [4].al While I respect that many disagree with Singal's coverage and conclusions, he's clearly an expert journalist in this area and his comments should be included. -Pengortm (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
You have provided three sources on Singal's expertise; thank you. The first is his own website, which had no bearing on this discussion, and did you actually read the other two? The quotes you have provided are both brutally ripped of context: neither source agrees that he is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications - instead, the two independent sources you have provided both argue that Singal is decidedly unreliable on trans issues.
Also, we are in the "D" phase of "BRD", here - please don't reinsert disputed text until we are done. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
While those sources individually reject Singal, they nevertheless recognize his general prominence on the topic in addition to rebutting him, which counts for something. Still, how to define 'expertise' for journalists is fuzzy at best. Secondary sources covering this would help decide the matter. Crossroads -talk- 04:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/science-based-medicines-coverage

SBM Editor Emeritus letter

Meanwhile, amidst all the fury and edit warring about "assigned [whatever] at birth", editors are also rejecting attempts to insert mention of a founding editor of Science-Based Medicine coming out against the current editors on the issue of reviews of this book. Apparently Substack (where much journalism happens these days) is not a valid source, though it happens to be where the letter in question was published. Here's the passage in question:

An editor emeritus of Science-Based Medicine, Kimball Atwood, defended the original review and criticized the later articles.[1]

*Dan T.* (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "An Emeritus Editor At Science-Based Medicine Just Sent This Letter To Steven Novella Criticizing The Site's Recent Turn Away From Rigorous Science". jessesingal.substack.com. 2021-09-25. Retrieved 2021-10-01.
I'm not sure there is a consensus yet on whether Substack as a platform is WP:RS, or if only individual Substacks are reliable because in addition to the named writer, they also have editorial staff and editorial guidelines. This is an important distinction to make because The Dispatch is a reliable source, that publishes on Substack, because it has both editorial guidelines and editorial staff in addition to article authors. Having taken a brief look at Jessee's substack however, I cannot find mention of an editorial team or guidelines that he follows. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this particular substack is an SPS and does not meet WP:RSOPINION requirements. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
If we were using the blog/substack as a source for particular factual contentions than I think we would have to more carefully consider the reliable source issues. However, the claim being made in the above is reasonable to source to this. I think this clearly should be included and that there's no real source issue here.-Pengortm (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. This self-published source is being used for particular factual contentions about a living third party, Kimball Atwood. WP:SPS is unambiguous here: we can't do that. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Psychology Today

Hey @Crossroads: and @Banglange: if y'all are still interested in continuing the discussion regarding the reliability of Psychology Today. I kindly ask you two to discuss it here.CycoMa (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

My fault, I apologize. I misinterpreted which talk button meant talking where. My comment is/was: My understanding is that blogs count as SPSs and RSs according to the author. As far as I can tell, Turban appears still to be in training rather than being an established expert. So, I don't think it's a contradiction to have Psych Today in other articles, but not in this one. No?Banglange (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What do you think @Crossroads:?CycoMa (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Banglange, what makes you think he is still in training? I think quality-wise it is about on-par with most other sources here. If it is removed, then other editors will wish to remove other sources. Ultimately it serves the purpose of NPOV of showing the variety of views on the subject. Crossroads -talk- 05:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Banglange:?CycoMa (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

In his Psychology Today bio (https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/contributors/jack-turban-md-mhs), he identifies himself as a "fellow," which is a training level after "resident." I have no idea what other editors may or may not want, but according https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources, blogs like the ones in Psych Today would go according to the expert status of the author, not the location of the blog. One cannot be both an expert and trainee at the same time.Banglange (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that most of the attention here is on another section of the page, but are there any more thoughts about the above? Also, with regard to NPOV, the edit would bring things closer to neutral: The text providing negative comments is currently much longer than the text providing negative comments (~370 words vs ~290 words, plus ~100 words giving mixed). Removing the PsychToday text (-80 words) would make it almost exactly even.Banglange (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
@Banglange: I’m not against removing Psychology Today. How about you @Crossroads:?CycoMa (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I did a further look on this guy and apparently he is a chief fellow. https://profiles.stanford.edu/jack-turban Not sure if that changes anything tho.CycoMa (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Also apparently he went to Harvard. Which is a big deal.CycoMa (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It's just going to make the article POV to remove it, most likely. I am well aware of the academic and journalistic criticisms of Turban's claims about pediatric transition, but he does have some claim to expertise on the topic, and if we remove it, then editors will just want to remove other reviews. However, if you know of other expert WP:SPS by others with different views, then I would suggest adding them. Also, if Turban is not being presented accurately somehow, then we can and should fix that. Crossroads -talk- 20:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Judging by the fact he went to Harvard does indicate he has reliability. I do kinda see where Banglange is getting their mindset, Psychology Today is kinda a self-publish blog post which isn't ideal for Wikipedia standards and Turban being a fellow probably does indicate Turban is training.
However, the post Turban made does say it was reviewed by Devon Frye. So I guess the post does have reliability.CycoMa (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Times UK Best Book of 2021

While doing my analysis for the counting of various terms (AFAB/AMAB, biological female/male/sex, natal female/male/sex) above, I came across an issue with one of the sources in the article. The reception section says that this book is a "Times Best Book of 2021", for that it cites this page on The Times website[1] via an archive URL. At the time of archiving the article was titled "The best books of 2021: our predictions". Shrier's name appears on the revision of that page dated 2 December 2020. Archive.is has nine revisions of the article stored, for which 2 December 2020 is the oldest. The next revision of the page was archived on January 23 2021, with the same title, however Irreversible Damage had been removed from the list. The next revision after that is dated 7 March 2021, where the page title was changed to "The best books of 2021", dropping ":our predictions". In none of the revisions after the name change, or indeed any after January 23rd 2021 contain Shrier's name.

Should we remove this from the article? Based on the source, it is inaccurate to say that Shrier's book was "The book was named ... a Times Best Book of 2021 for its UK publication". At best it was nominated for a best book in December 2020, however some point in early 2021 that nomination had been rescinded. As of the point where the list turned from predictions to a more definitive best book list, the book has not been readded to the list. Unless of course there is another more relevant or recent citation that categorically states it is one of The Times' best books of 2021? Unfortunately I don't have a subscription to The Times to do an exhaustive search on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Am I understanding correctly that Irreversible Damage appeared in the article when it was titled "The best books of 2021: our predictions" but was removed from the article even before the title was changed to "The best books of 2021"? If so, the reference to Irreversible Damage being a "Times Best Book of 2021" should be removed completely from the article unless there's a different citation to support the content. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you are understanding correctly. I wasn't sure how to handle it, because it was in the original version of the prediction list, but it was removed from the prediction list on or before 23 January 2021. Irreversible Damage has not appeared in any revision of the list archived on archive.is other than the one dated 2 December 2020. Sometime around the 7 March 2021 revision, it stopped being a prediction list and was instead the "Times best books of 2021" list. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the claim, as it cannot be verified. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks Elli. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Millen, Robbie; Holgate, Andrew (December 1, 2020). "The best books of 2021: our predictions". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on December 2, 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irreversible_Damage/Archive_6&oldid=1059066395"