|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in New York City may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Author of 5 books is not notable enough? Also, I agree that the page needs more work; it'll get done. Yodaat 18:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"e-mail interview with subject"
Bravejoints, while I respect the work involved in interviewing Jeffrey Satinover for this article, an unpublished interview is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia, which depends upon reliable published sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources), especially for potentially controversial material about living persons. If you could persuade Mr. Satinover to host the interview on his website, that would make it an acceptable source for non-contentious material provided that "the article is not based primarily" upon it ("Using the subject as a self-published source").
However, some statements in the article cannot be based purely on Mr. Satinover's own statements, whether those are published or not; for example, that one of his books "has been applauded by psychologists, psychiatrists, scientists and Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and Muslim religious leaders". Statements like this require independent sources. EALacey 14:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The article says Satinover's writings 'lack the “New Age” features characteristic of most genuine Jungians.' This looks like a biased expression of opinion, and I am going to remove it in the near future unless someone can suggest a good reason why I shouldn't. Skoojal (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I've overhauled this entry to a far greater extent than I originally intended, so I though I'd post a bit of explanation. It was repetitious, and some of the repeated material was not referenced. I've tried to reorganize it with an emphasis on chronology, admittedly a bias of mine, which I hope will make it easier to improve in future. That means reworking from resume-style "He is past president of XXX" to "He was president of XXX in YEAR," which is normal bio style. I think I've only made 3 substantive contributions: (1) material from his NY Times wedding announcement, (2) his providing commentary in two documentary films, and (3) a re-write of his role in the Thomas hearings, which is well-documented. I've tried to maintain NPOV. The only bit I removed that I imagine someone might care about was an unreferenced statement that his work had been cited in many amicus curiae briefs. Since anyone can submit such briefs and cite anything they choose, it's really of no significance. The day a court decision cites his work, that will be news. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia but have tried to follow the example set above. I have further edited the section on Clarence Thomas. Some of the changes and their reasons are: 1) “lying” reworded--According to the DSM, a delusion is not a “lie” 2) Psychiatrists were brought in by both sides 3) Any of the psychiatrists brought in by both sides could have testified. None were willing to. 4) In the Kutchin reference, the reason for Satinover's change of mind is made explicit and reasonable. In omitting detail, Mayer and Abramson make it look like a deathbed conversion. 5) Catherine MacKinnon is extremely well-known as holding left and extreme opinions on a number of matters. The New York Times, “the paper of record” is a better representative of press opinion.
I have removed the reference to Emmanuel Margolis as I can find no evidence for it.
Edits to Jeffery Satinover page, describing his book, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth": There have been statements by other editors that make it seem like the book is mostly a Christian "evangelical" argument. It is not; it mostly talks about the genetics of of homosexuality and clearly argues at the question of whether homosexuality is so fixed that it cannot be changed. But this is my impression only. As a matter of fact (my edits are based on these facts), the book does not spend that much time talking about a "biblical" view of homosexuality, even if it does in a way that I find important yet balanced. The book is available in many libraries and there is kindle version. The book has 16 chapters. 9 chapters (almost 60%) discusses science and medicine. Most of this is about genetics and if homosexuality is genetic. 1 chapter (less than 10%) talks about Christian opinions 1 chapter talks about if treatment is a good idea or not, based on what someone wants 1 chapter talks about Jewish opinions 1 chapter talks about Christian treatments 1 chapter talks about secular treatments 1 chapter talks about philosophy and history Therefore, the book mostly analyzes science (9 chapters and part of 3 chapters) = 65% (estimate) About the bible, the book discusses 3 out of 16 chapters (but not al of these chapters) = 20% (estimate) About other matters, the book discusses 3 out of 16 chapters, too = 15% (estimate), a lot of this is review and analysis of history
So, I have made these changes: "makes a detailed analysis of homosexuality and of opinions about it. The book debates the nature of homosexuality from psychological, religious and scientific perspectives. Satinover argues that homosexuality involves compulsive impulses and "is not a true illness, though it may be thought an illness in the spiritual sense of 'soul sickness,' innate to fallen human nature." He also argues that "gay activism distorts the truth and harms not only society, but homosexuals themselves". Most of the book discusses whether homosexuality is biological and genetic and if it can be changed. About one fifth of the book discusses human sexuality from Jewish and Christian perspectives."
I undid Jeremy112233 undoing of my last edit: Jeremy112233 undid because he/she thought two quotations were not direct quotations. But they are direct quotations of Satinover in two different interviews. If this is not made clear enough by how I referenced them, I welcome help. Bravejoints2 (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Bravejoints2
- It is a violation of WP:NOR to conduct a personal interview with the subject of the BLP in order to give him the opportunity to refute what he wrote in his published book. Jeremy112233's edits should have been left to stand. Furthermore, the fact that Bravejoints2 is doing this sort of thing supports my assertion (below) that s/he is engaged in editing this BLP primarily for the purpose of attempting to whitewash Satinover's actual record. --Branmuffin22 (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I plan to remove from Branmuffin22(Branmuffin22), modified?) "Some groups who oppose the expansion of LGBT rights and protections have incorporated his research into their position papers." Is there evidence that Santinover has endorsed these groups and ALL of what they stand for? (guilt by association) He is on record for what he does stand for (I have added some of this). Anyone may cite who they want to but not every such site is important and cites may be selected in a bias way. Should Wikipedia group all cites of every living person [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|living persons] or every person? I welcome responses. Bravejoints2 (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Bravejoints2
- That seems like an appropriate edit. I researched it for about an hour and couldn't find a rebuttal. Sean Egan (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
RESPONSE to question about bias
The edits I made were an attempt to show the manner in which Jeffrey Satinover's work has been used, not just in a few isolated instances, but consistently and frequently. The fact is, Satinover's writings are used pretty much exclusively by organizations that seek to dehumanize and undermine the civil rights and fair treatment of LGBT people. Far right-wing "Christian" groups and others, including some organizations that are classified as "Hate Groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, frequently cite Satinover's writings as evidence that LGBT people are "less-than" and should therefore be denied equal rights under the law. For fans of Satinover, this might be an inconvenient truth, but it is, nevertheless, the truth. I have never seen Satinover's writings used by any organization that stands for equality and fairness for LGBT people. Satinover's book, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" problematizes the very existence of LGBT people. It is deeply, fundamentally, dehumanizing. It adopts a tone of "concern" for gay people, yet it cites outdated research--research discredited by the mainstream scientific community (e.g., the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association)-- to makes a case against LGBT people. It draws on the worst of anti-gay stereotypes: that gay people are diseased, promiscuous, predisposed to pedophilia, and incapable of love. It does all this in an attempt to portray the lives and loves of LGBT people (primarily gay men) as inferior. Satinover argues that LGBT people's very existence is wrong, and that they need to be changed. His service on the Scientific Advisory Committee of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality ("NARTH") is further evidence of his point of view.
I can understand that people who have a personal fondness for Satinover may wish to whitewash these facts. Frankly, I'm tired of the back-and-forth editing on this. So, Satinover fans: You win. But I do hope that someone else who has the time and energy will step in and continue to try to show the full truth about what Satinover has said and written about LGBT people. And if Satinover, himself, has changed his views since the time "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" was published, then it is incumbent upon him to correct the record in an equally public and academic fashion. But currently, based on the vast body of evidence publicly available, there can be no question that Satinover sees LGBT people as intrinsically and definitionally inferior to heterosexuals.
And speaking of bias, it's interesting that in Bravejoints2's most recent edits, describing Satinover's expert testimony in the Florida adoption case, s/he managed to cherry-pick a handful of quotes that make Satinover appear to be a little less anti-gay. Given the preponderance of anti-LGBT writing and speaking in which Satinover has engaged, the selection of these quotes appears, to me, to be exactly the type of bias of which you have accused me.
- I would recommend not trying to alter the text of others, and instead to add constructively to the article. If you feel the quotes were cherry-picked, add some additional ones from the case that could balance out the coverage in the article instead of just trying to alter or erase what someone else has written. It sounds like your complaint is that there is not enough material from each side to balance each other out, so if you concentrate on adding constructively to this article on top of what is already here rather than trying to overhaul the entire thing you may end up with a more positive result. Just a thought. Jeremy112233 (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the suggestion, Jeremy112233, but if you look at the edit history, you'll see it is my text that keeps getting altered and deleted. I've tried doing precisely what you suggest, and one or two people keep deleting my edits and source notes to "spin" the article to make it more favorable to Satinover. It's entirely possible that Satinover himself, or someone acting on his behalf, is trying to whitewash his record. This is why I said I'm tired of the back-and-forth, and I'm hoping some fair-minded editors will get involved. --Branmuffin22 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I got a second wind, and decided to make some better and even more-thoroughly-researched edits. It will be interesting to see whether Satinover's defenders try to undo these edits, too. --Branmuffin22 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to stay neutral on this one, but to say that the other editor [Bravejoints2] does have a single purpose user account and seems to know a lot about Wikipedia--which says to me that either he has only ever edited from an IP address in the past, and just now got an account, or the user may be using multiple accounts. It is best to assume good faith, but I do find it suspicious. I have no problem at all with paid editing if that's what it is, however I am against any paid advocacy or the use of multiple accounts as it is breaks Wikipedia policy.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Bravejoints2, the editor who has been primarily responsible for revising this article to whitewash the things Satinover has actually written and said about LGBT people, admits himself that s/he has some tie to Satinover. Bravejoints2 said he has interviewed Satinover for this article (which strikes me as a violation of WP:NOR). Bravejoints2 stated, below, that "In an email I alerted Satinover to what was happening on Wikipedia." --Branmuffin22 (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Satinover has testified against same-sex marriage, and in his book, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth," Satinover argues that gay people are universally promiscuous and incapable of forming lasting, loving relationships. Some have used Satinover's work to argue that the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage points to the end of the world. The section you recently added describing Satinover's views on gay adoption quotes him as saying that divorce is a "form of heterosexual misbehavior." So yes, the fact that Satinover himself is divorced and remarried is very relevant.
- Branmuffin, your argument is completely against policy. We do not write articles to demonstrate that a subject is a hypocrite. That is original research and violates WP:OR. In the particular case, inclusion or exclusion of his divorce is governed by WP:DUE. The bit about his divorce seems to be a minor fact. Had his ex-wife been notable, or even named, then the item would be a good candidate for inclusion. If you have an argument based on policy, i.e. WP:DUE, then let's hear it.– Lionel (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Bias: Not cherries, baneberries
The below comments refer only (at present) to Branmuffin22's use of Stuart Chambers' book, that “analyzes” Satinover. I have attempted to provide specifics as to why Branmuffin22's comments are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.
Regarding the reliability of sources, Wikipedia states that “articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. Furthermore, “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (March 2012)”
By implication, Wikipedia editors should not merely troll the internet to leap at the first reference that suits their POV. I am concerned that Branmuffin22 has done just that as evidenced by the following facts, available to anyone who makes even a minimal effort:
1) “Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both”
Although Google Books lists him as a “Professor” and elsewhere as a “scientist” at the University of Ottowa (as repeated by Barnmuffin22), the blurb for Chambers' book states that he has a Master's degree from this University and that he became interested in the subject as an undergraduate. He is cited approvingly by a former student as a High School teacher. I can find no evidence that he has the credentials Wikipedia requires.
Chambers appears to have published nothing in any scientific or social science journal. He is not referenced on CiteSeer or SSRN. His book is referenced in Google Scholar (which returns to Google Books only) but shows no outside citations of it—i.e., this Wikipedia article will be the first such.
2) reliability of “...the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)”
The book appears to have been published by a vanity press in Ottowa (http://www.gsph.com). It is unavailable in public libraries in, for example, Miami, Dade County, Florida. Its Amazon rank is over 6,000,000 and it has no reader reviews. Not even Library Journal has reviewed it. (By contrast, “Birdwatching for Dummies” is ranked at about 216,000 and has 18 reviews.)
3) “All majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).”
I guess no prob here as there is no coverage in this book of any other point of view (see point 4). Even as a formality, reliable sources give at least lip service to opposing viewpoints.
4) “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately”
In accord with his previous statements in Talk (“any means necessary”), by referring readers to this book, Branmuffin22 is indirectly claiming about Satinover that he is, in addition to a homophobe,
-- a ”...poster boy for neo-con psychiatry [sic]” --”you cannot teach an old dog new tricks” --”purely nonsensical” --”difficult to believe he holds degrees from M.I.T and Harvard” --”pathetically preachy” --”does not bode well for Jeffrey Satinover's future business”
5) “...especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (March 2012)”
I do not know whether there is any further accountability that may be found within Wikipedia. In an email I alerted Satinover to what was happening on Wikipedia. (I previously interviewed Satinover, and then added to his Wikipedia article, though anyone may easily find how to contact him.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravejoints2 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. I removed that text per WP:SYNTH before I read these remarks, but the questions raised here about Chambers' scholarship are actually a more compelling argument for exclusion.
- Should Dr. Satinover come to the page, although I suspect that a MIT/Harvard/Yale grad has far better things to do than edit Wikipedia, he should peruse WP:COI. – Lionel (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Stuart Chambers' book, The Moral Minority: Identifying, Analyzing, and Exposing Homophobes, is no less credible than Satinover's own book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, which is published by an Evangelical Christian book publisher. You are concerned that Chambers has potentially libeled Satinover? Funny. Satinover has devoted a significant portion of his career to stereotyping, defaming and dehumanizing all LGBT people, yet you seem entirely unconcerned about that. Read Satinover's book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, and listen to what he has said. Apparently, some people are impressed with Satinover's degrees, and Satinover has used them to try to gain credibility for his work. This is why hate groups cite him over and over and over. Yet as someone with a Harvard degree of my own, I know that the overwhelming majority of people in the credible community of therapists, psychiatrists, and psychoanalysts fundamentally disagree with most of what Satinover has written and said about LGBT people. Mainstream medical and scientific organizations say the sort of "conversion therapy" that Satinover advocates is "potentially harmful." Satinover is well outside the mainstream and, in order have any semblance of objectivity, this article needs to reflect that.--Branmuffin22 (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Possible solution to contention over homosexuality
Why is there so much information regarding the content of his work regarding homosexuality? The guy isn't mostly known for his anti-gay rhetoric. He's really scarcely known at all. Couldn't there be a couple sentences that go as follows:
- This dude is a physicist. Oddly enough, he published a book about homosexuality and doesn't like the fact that it exists. Here's a link to a wikipedia page about the book. Double bracket Name of book reverse double bracket.
Then you can add this stuff to the page about the book. That would be so much more appropriate! And you guys have basically already done all the legwork needed!
In addition, couldn't we do the same with the Florida case, which already has a page? Right now this page reads as an anti-gay advocacy page with interjections from a pro-gay advocate. (Very ANTI Wikipedian...) What I read from it is:
- This dude is a physicist. Physicists are smart. He's been in films like What the bleep do we know. He doesn't like gays. So there's an educated dude that doesn't like gays. And he wrote a book about it. Here's some main points of his book. But his arguments are wrong. But they aren't. But they are. But they aren't. But they are good points. Let's not like gay people. But that's stupid.
As a neutral third party who hasn't contributed, I find it a tad inappropriate. Can we fix it? I know you've put hard work into this and I think it's great! It's just not appropriate for a biographical page. Sean Egan (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- You make some fair points, Sean Egan. The length of this article is far greater than is warranted for a person of Satinover's stature. Anyone familiar with Satinover's work knows he's a fringe character. Yes, he has degrees from some impressive-sounding schools, but so do a lot of people. (Did I mention I have a Harvard degree, too? LOL) He is not well known. His writings on two major subjects—homosexuality and so-called "Bible codes"—are well outside the mainstream, although they are well-known in certain circles.
- Here, I think, are the most salient bits of information about Satinover (i.e., the stuff for which he is most historically noteworthy) in order of importance:
- 1. He wrote a book in 1996, oft-cited by extreme right religious groups, problematizing homosexuality and arguing that gays need to be changed, contrary to the mainstream view of all major scientific and medical organizations. He believes that homosexuality was improperly declassified by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental illness.
- 2. He had a major role in getting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas confirmed, positing that Anita Hill suffered from the delusional disorder "erotomania."
- 3. He's testified in favor of anti-gay policy (the Florida anti-gay adoption ban, the last remaining one of its kind in the United States, overturned in 2010), and against pro-gay legislation (Massachusetts same-sex marriage law, passed in 2004).
- 4. He believes there are secret hidden messages within the texts of the Bible. He wrote a book on it.
- 5. He was featured as a spokesperson in the New Age film "What the Bleep to We Know?"
- 6. He writes on game theory. He's trained as a physicist. He's trained as a Jungian psychologist. Nowadays, he fancies himself an investment manager.
- No bio of Satinover would be complete without stating the fact that his writings on gays have been picked up and popularized by fringe groups, who frequently cite him as an authority because of his impressive-sounding credentials.
- About a month ago, Bmclaughlin9 made edits to this bio that struck me as very wise. S/he significantly shortened and improved upon the article. Bravejoints2, who acknowledges s/he has done original research and interviewed Satinover for this bio, added most of it back. This article needs to become less of a "puff piece" on Satinover, and be shortened to a length commensurate with Satinover's historical stature. Take a look at the article on Scott Lively for an example of one on a controversial figure that is of appropriate length given the guy's stature. --Branmuffin22 (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the bio on Satinover has exceeded his interest, as expanded abruptly in March. However as BLPs are to be corrected immediately I have done so (without removing comments, as warned) by adding references and information that counterbalances what could easily look like (looks to me like) a campaign to present just one dimension of his POV. I have read his book and other writings and what he gets across isn't at all just shallow bigotry. Satinover is pretty explicit in "not liking" gay activists. Though agreeing with Sean's POV about how this debate should be represented in W, I am uncomfortable with his (OK, maybe tongue in cheek) presumption that Satinover "doesn't like gays", especially as all talk on W is public. If it was ironic, it may not come across that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravejoints2 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Edit conflict over "Trojan Couch" and "fringe" ideas
"A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is."
Santinover's book and other writings have been brought up and broadly criticized in this article using numerous references to "non-mainstream" organizations who quote him. These have not been removed (have been restored, in fact, when I tried to delete them as being guilt by association). The topic of what his point of view actually is completely fair--not just those parts of his thinking chosen by critics. A major part of the book is about his conviction that homsosexuality is potentially changeable for many, as well as his documentation then and later that the scientific record has been distorted in the public debate. (The claims he makes refer to a wide body of scientific literature, not just bible quotes) Stating that he stated this should scarcely be off limits when his pov is being described as not-mainstream). It has been argued that he doesn't deserve a wiki page--that's fine, but if one is going to be kept up while he's alive it should if anything err in the opposite direction of the critiques, if at all possible.
"Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources." He has supported his claims with innumerable references in both his book and Trojan Couch (OK, my opinion). But the work he did there was good ebough to find its way into court briefs on what is probably the most contentious social debate now. So don't censor him as it were. The original delete of my stating this made the slightly odd point (imo) that his own words don't count. I added additional references...
"An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea" it isn't. But neither should selected aspects of his POV be erased and others kept in order to avoid presenting his claims fairly.
"and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Scholars at the National University of Suingapore don't count? Why not? The references I included that reference his work (as suggested was needed) are a mix of primary and popular sources no less "fringe" than the references used by others that are truly irrelevant, such as that yet other groups use his work in a way some authors don't like.
I have a very strong impression of an organzied effort to one the one hand make sure his reputation is tarnished and other to supress hos actual point of view.
Furthermore, that homosexuality is potentially changeable is NOT a fringe view. It is a minority view that is actively agitated against not so much scientifically as politically, a point he makes with sufficent evidence as to attract precisely this kind of distortion.
- The "Fringe" nature is due to the lack of reliability of your sources. The websites you are using are not reliable. If you can research and find books published by legitimate publishers, or articles published in notable magazines or journals, then there would be an argument that it is not "Fringe". If you provided proper research, no one would have reason to revert your additions, however the refernces you are using are not collectively notable or reliable enough. There is no organized effort to tarnish the reputation of the subject; it is that the research being done by yourself is not up to Wikipedia standards. It is not so much the content of what you are saying, but that there has been no work done to ensure the referencing is to Wikipedia standards. As for his own works, "The Trojan Couch" does not come from a reliable or notable publisher, so it cannot be used in lieu of what is stated in more legitimate publications. Any additional refences will have to be reliable and notable; not non-notable websites and self-published literature.
- I am trying to point you in the right direction here in terms of Wikipedia style; I have no personal interest in the content you are trying to post as long as it is done properly.Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Very well, thank you for your politeness and explanation. I will respond in greater detail before re-editing. One comment and one question. Comment: It seems evidently improper for W to make claims about someone but then be prohibited from simply using his own prior words as an explanation/rebuttal. But this is a point I will make here with more pointed evidence to support its reasonableness.
- Question: Is Wikipedia itself considered a "reliable source"?
- No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, because it is a composite of third-party sources and not a source itself. Think of this like a law review--you can never cite an article citing a different article, you must find the original source and cite that (only here its not quite as stringent). If you feel that the sources others have used are not reliable, you can feel free to remove those--though you have to be certain they do not fall under the category of notability or reliability and are not just antithetical to your argument. You can use well-sourced Sanitover quotations or references (as long as they are not self-published or published in a non-reliable/notable form), but they cannot trump a different reliable source just because they're in the words of the subject. In instances of this, both points of view must be left to stand. Ideas and opinions about the subject of an article are considered valid foder for a Wikipedia page if sourced properly. I'd said this before, but, try to add and not subtract from articles, unless there is a glaring error in Wikipedia policy--someone not using the right sources is usually the only one that will stick without a fight. Neutral parties will decide of the amalgamation of different editors' words need to be reduced after such a product is made.Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Satinover's book predents an interesting case. On one hand in order to understand the book a detailed synopsis is essential. On the other hand it is also important to have critical review. The standard article structure for books is to have the detailed summary in one section, and critical response following in a seperate section. See  and . The summary does not require a citation because it is understood that the book itself is the source. This means that the ideas and details of the book are presented first--without commentary. And then the commentary follows. – Lionel (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that some people still think Satinover's book presents an "interesting case" is, to me, evidence that homophobia is the last acceptable bias. Some of the precepts on which Satinover bases his theories can only be described as stereotypes (very ugly ones at that), and that fact that some people do not have the consciousness to even be able to see that tells me we have a long way to go before society accepts LGBT people as fully human, deserving of the same respect, dignity, rights and freedoms as everyone else. Imagine, for example, Satinover had written a book problematizing the very existence of women, Jews, or Asians. I think the discussion on these pages would be quite different. Be that as it may, Satinover's ideas have been influential enough, and have garnered enough attention, to probably be worthy of a Wikipedia page. The page should summarize Satinover's ideas as objectively as possible. The reader can decide what to make of him. --Branmuffin22 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the drive-by tag. This article has POV issues. The most obvious upon intial examination were the frequent use of WP:WEASEL & WP:PEACOCK words, as well as a bit of editorializing WP:EDITORIAL. Examples:
- " It is written for a well-educated, general readership, but it has been cited in a number of scientific publications"
- "He is known for books on a number of controversial topics in physics and neuroscience, and on religion, but especially for his writing"
- "Most of the book discusses whether homosexuality is biological"