Talk:Robert A. J. Gagnon

Balance and Context

This entry fails to give readers even the remotest idea of the lightening rod figure Gagnon has become, and is therefore woefully inadequate. I will be adding a new section, "Controversy," quickly outlining debates over his methods, style/tone, and political and pseudoscientific involvements in the next few days, complete with citations.Antinoos69 (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

I'll be watching you closely, and won't hesitate to RV you if any of it is defamatory. In particular, third-party sources are more helpful than pro-family or pro-gay websites. For instance, I would prefer not having either the Ruth Institute or Equality Matters links, but think we should include both if we include eitherjj (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I assure you, I've actually read Gagnon, not merely about him. Among my quotes and citations will be the man's own words, including from his own works. I'll also be quoting other respected scholars, not bloggers or the like. Inevitably, under the circumstances, much of that will paint him in a negative light, for which no one is responsible but Gagnon himself. And I, too, will not hesitate to return my comments and appeal to higher authorities should you prove to be merely some blushing Gagnon fanAntinoos69 (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

[WP:PSTS]. Good luck. jj (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

PLease also put in more biographical and non-controversial info per WP:NPOV. jj (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'll be limiting myself to the new "Controversy" section, the purpose of which will be to inform readers (a) that Gagnon is especially controversial for an academic and (b) of the reasons for that controversy. Naturally, I'll be attempting to do that in one well structured and fairly heavily annotated paragraph of moderate length, given the brevity of the remainder of the article. I will generally not argue whether Gagnon is right or wrong, allowing the quotes, associations, beliefs, positions, and facts to stand for themselves, trusting the average reader's judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antinoos69 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Then that is inappropriate. We should build the whole article. WP:NPOV means all significant viewpoints should be recognized. This is not for someone who has a beef with him, or merely wants to focus on controversy until the structure of a longer article is built. 128.187.97.21 (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC) jj (talk) (I'm not logged in)

Of course it's appropriate. Don't be absurd. You're losing all sense of objectivity. Facts are facts, and that's what I'll be presenting. Others, including ourselves, are free to add whatever else they like. One is not required by WP:NPOV to add a negative fact only if one also adds a positive fact. That would be absurd. Just take a look at some of the other bios on here, including some moderated by official WP area editors. Just imagine what would happen to a Hitler bio. This is, after all, a collaborative effort. So collaborate. Your notion of some predetermined timeframe prerequisite is equally absurd. This is an orgainic process. So get to it!Antinoos69 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

I reverted your changes. You cannot take the person's own work and derive your own conclusions from that. You need to find reliable secondary sources that talk about the subject, and use their views, not yours. Further, the material was worded poorly at best, and is excessive in relation to the rest of the bio. Please familiarize yourself with the policy on living persons before you go any further. More importantly, Wikipedia is not here to help you further your cause, nor that of the subject or anyone else's. If you cannot maintain a neutral point of view I suggest you edit other articles and leave this one alone. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You are being absurd and biased. What more authoritative source as to a person's words can there be than what that person has written or said? Nor does one need to find a source that says such words are controversial, since incest and bestiality are controversial on their face. Besides, the only way one could show the controversy is by citing sources you don't like. So either expand your view of proper sources or leave the section be. I can't believe how utterly beyond anything even remotely approaching reasonable you are being. Grow up! Will I have to appeal to an offical WP editor?Antinoos69 (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

I believe my explanation is clear enough. I'm not sure what you think "an official WP editor" is, but you're welcome to report your grievances at WP:AN/I. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you're being absurd. Try suggesting specific changes that can be made to my very carefully considered section, rather than deleting the whole, laboriously constructed thing, altogether?Antinoos69 (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Controversy Section

I have finally added the new section, which I believe is as objective and factual as any such pertinent section could be. I have put considerable thought, consideration, judgment, and effort into it. I will be looking it over during the next several days for any potential edits I might like to make. I suggest that anyone with problems discuss them here before making changes, as I am prepared to keep making restorations otherwise.Antinoos69 (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

I oppose the addition of this section. Personally, I am in complete and total opposition to this man's teachings. But this section places undue weight on criticism, and in my opinion, violates our key policy on Biographies of living people. All Wikipedia content must be written from the neutral point of view. Accordingly, this article should not be transformed into a hit piece against Gagnon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I HAVE neutrally presented the controversy around Gagnon. Others are free to add sections on whatever they please. Would you blame one for not finding nice things to say about Hitler in a section concerning controversies around him? This is ridiculous. Besides, where apt, I have included Gagnon's response. Instead, why don't you suggest specific changes that can be made to make what I wrote "appropriate"?Antinoos69 (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

A BLP where 3/4 of the text is controversy is not balanced. I'll be removing the section immediately. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Then add to it yourself. Instead of deleting an entire carefully and laboriously constructed section, why don't you suggest specific changes? Why don't you suggest adding a new section? Why don't you do some work, yourself?Antinoos69 (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

REQUEST. Before deleting or making major changes to what I very carefully and laboriously wrote--I assure you!--discuss the matter here. Try making SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS rather than engaging in flip hand-waving.Antinoos69 (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Look at WP:BRD jj (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversy is like the pinnacle of editing. You cannot add it without building a foundation jj (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Works Section

I would suggest expanding this section, and expanding the citation format to better match the notes section. Unfortunately, I am a bit tired from today's efforts to do so now. Help would be appreciated.Antinoos69 (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Expansion directions

This is basically an exercise in finding independent sources

• Hunt down his PhD thesis in the library catalog of the issuing institution
• Trawl through google scholar to find proper references to articles.
• Reference his DOB to the VIAF ref (is that allowed?)
• Find a reliable reference for his faith (his employer is associated with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), is he?)

Stuartyeates (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed “Controversy” Section, with “Notes”

Robert Gagnon has become a controversial academic and public figure due to some of his comments and views, his style and some of his methods, and his activism. In his view, the “best analogies” for homosexuality are “adultery, prostitution, incest, and bestiality,” though he terms “incest” the “best analogy” of all, arguing the point at some length. “It is my contention,” he says, “that homosexual practice is a more serious violation of Scripture’s sexual norms than even incest” and “plural marriage.” He also, on occasion, uses the term “homosexualist” of LGBT-related matters. Scholars have accused Gagnon of a belligerent and aggressive style, of overly selective argumentation and evidence, of an insufficient command of Ancient Near Eastern languages, and of an underdeveloped sense of hermeneutics. Also contentious has been Gagnon’s dismissal of the consensus of expert scholars on the history of sexuality in classical antiquity. Finally, in his activism, he supports widely discredited sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE), sometimes called conversion therapy or reparative therapy, and NARTH (The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality); Gagnon often supports his activism by citing the discredited science of Paul Cameron and The Family Research Institute (FRI), an SPLC-designated hate group. It was while alluding generally to such activism that the classicist Jean-Fabrice Nardelli listed Gagnon among the “academics turned ayatollahs.” Gagnon responded by calling the epithet an “insult” and “personal attack.”

Antinoos69 (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Discussion of Proposed “Controversy” Section, with “Notes”

The most notable thing about Gagnon, by far, is the controversy in which he has decided to embroil himself. The vast majority of readers coming to this WP article will be doing so precisely because of that controversy, looking to find out its causes and the origin of various words and deeds. The circle of people interested in Gagnon for what is not controversial about him is miniscule, at best. One might even say infinitesimal. An article that omits so much as mention of the existence of that controversy is useless, vacuous, inane, and unable to justify its continued existence. When the first few hits in a general online search provide more pertinent information than a WP article, it is high time to reevaluate the proper use of that article’s data storage space. I have therefore proposed the above new section with notes. It is meant only to (a) inform readers of the controversy, and (b) explain its causes. It might also be advisable to include a separate “Influence” section detailing his rise to prominence within the conservative religious movement. The ins and outs of that movement, and its scholarship, are beyond my areas of expertise, so others will have to devote themselves to the drafting of that, for which I would only make passing suggestions and comments. I do, however, hold two degrees very pertinent to the section I am proposing, regarding which I do hold considerable expertise. I am therefore comfortable writing this section only. (Unlike what may well be standard practice on here—angels and saints preserve us!—I do not believe in producing anything with authoritative pretensions on a subject without actually possessing some expertise on that subject.) This section should likely follow any potential “Influence” section. THE ISSUE HERE: How will we edit this section before we actually do include it in the article? To be even remotely intelligible to me, all comments must include at least three things: (1) a specific reference to a word, phrase, sentence, or note that is perceived as problematic; (2) specifically stated reasons, explained in detail, for any perceived problems—and alphabet-soup references to WP policies will not suffice, as I am likely interpreting those differently anyway; and (3) some specific indication(s) of how the perceived problem(s) can be fixed. I put several days’ worth of thought, and about ten hours’ worth of writing, into this section, so I will expect the same sort of consideration in return. If I receive no comments before the article’s lockdown period ends, I will repost this material. Finally, I would rather not receive any private messages about this matter. I am not particularly a fan of unsolicited mail, finding it intrusive, bothersome, and offensive. Please make all comments plainly and completely here. Also warn of all “warnings” here, as I likely will not notice them otherwise. Thank you. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Look, I've run into the same problem as you. We disagree politically but both of us share a common cause--putting what we feel is true up. I've been reverted on the LGBT Parenting site. Want to know what I've learned? You have to play by Wikipedia's rules. You would be better off citing pro-LGBT sites than Gagnon himself (despite what I said above). That comes from Wikipedia policies. Stating you are "interpreting those differently" is irrelevant. You have to build consensus here. Most posters on here disagree with Gagnon but still follow the policies. So no matter how many times you explain or defend your actions, and you certainly have good reasons to feel how you do, I doubt you will find sympathy. If you don't want to edit Gagnon's article because you don't feel like you're not an expert, then come back in 5 years when the page is longer and add what you have researched in then. I know you've spent time on this, but if I spent 1000 hours composing something outside the guidelines, it should be reverted. jj (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And this is part of Wiki policy: "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Your material has sourcing problems because you must "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That's the New York Times, not Equalitymatters or Gagnon himself. Has Gagnon been featured in a newspaper that is not LGBT-based? if so, let's put it in.

You seem a bit confused about this. Official Wiki policy is that the best citation for a scholar's words is to to work in which he/she originally said them. See WP:WPNOTRS (Quotations). In this case, at least, Wiki has decided to follow standard scholarly practice. Small victory! Extending the principle, any claim that a scholar explicitly or literally says or does anything is best cited to the work where he/she explicitly or literally says or does it. Anything else would very properly be absurd, removing oneself even further from the actual fact. I would never even consider looking at a secondary source for such things, unless that source provided a citation to the original work, at which point I would then check it myself before quoting it. This idea you're promoting really is a stretch. Sorry, you can't say the Bible begins with "in the beginning" unless you quote a source saying it begins with "in the beginning." It's rather funny, isn't it? Just cite the biblical passage, for crying out loud, and stop wasting our time by running around in ever more unreliable circles! Well, now you've gone and dragged me into this Wiki alphabet soup nonsense. Shame on you.Antinoos69 (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Your first step? Understand the policies from our point of view and find good newspaper articles or other third-party reliable sources that work, and we can discuss how to include them. jj (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, you seem a bit confused. See previous comment above. Now, how about those precise citations of problems in my section, with indications as to how to fix?Antinoos69 (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

From the page you linked to: "Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source"

"Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." (emphasis mine)

So eliminate every cite to Gagnon as a start and find another source. jj (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You’re simply wrong and badly misconstruing Wiki policy. Curiously, you choose to emphasize the very passage explaining your problem. Unlike academia, Wiki does not allow “original research.” As every academic and graduate student on the planet is sick and tired of knowing, citing a source where a subject delivers a direct quote at issue and citing a work where that subject literally does what he/she is claimed to do DO NOT constitute “original research,” “interpretive claims,” “analyses,” “synthetic claims,” or any other such. In fact, according to WP:WPNOTRS (Quotations), which you ignore, such sources are the best to cite, and very properly so. What better source could there be? Only interpretations and deductions going beyond what is necessary to perform the act of reading and comprehending what is literally going on in what one reads constitute “original research.” For example, suppose a scholar cites a particular study in support of an argument he/she is literally engaged in making in a particular work. Not only may one cite that work in support of the claim that the scholar uses the study to support his/her argument, but it is the BEST sort of source to use. It gets no better than that. Get it straight from the horse’s mouth, as they say. On the other hand, suppose a scholar is engaged in a particular work in outlining the various scholarly positions on a subject without expressly taking a stand. On Wiki, unlike in academia, one cannot cite that work in support of the claim that, because the scholar spends inordinate time discussing one of the scholarly positions, the scholar actually supports that position. That involves logical deduction and going well beyond the act of reading, therefore constituting “original research.” In academia, in contrast, one can cite the work in the process of analyzing it within a logical argument for the scholar’s bias in that work, perhaps along with other secondary sources relevant to particular points in the argument. Wiki doesn’t trust us enough to allow any of that (though I can imagine policies that should allow it to work, but that’s a discussion for another day and place). As for policies on secondary sources in BLP, the context is in reference to the subject’s biographical details, including evaluations of his/her own work, and even then there are expressly stated exceptions. See how all this works? Does this begin to clarify matters for you? If not, I suggest you spend some time reading other bios on here for how these principles are generally applied. If that doesn’t help either, then try going to the Wiki forum or whatnot on sources, so that others can explain these matters to you. Otherwise, we’ll have to proceed to the next step in the “appeal” process, which I believe is “mediation,” to resolve what would then be our fundamental disagreement on these very particular Wiki policies. Maybe we should get that other confused and delete-happy editor to join us. Hopefully, we can avoid any such nonsense. Try to keep the final result you desire out of your scopes and focus on what the policies actually are, not to mention some common sense. To be clear, you really WOULD say, “Sorry, you can’t say the Bible begins with ‘in the beginning’ unless you cite someone who says it begins with ‘in the beginning.’” To be frank, I’m having extraordinary trouble with the idea that you actually believe what you’ve been saying here. On the bright side, you did give me my first laugh of the day. Thanks.Antinoos69 (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Every single policy we've linked to so far has a Talk page. I suggest you click on that and make your wall-of-text argument there, so that the policy is changed. Once that's done, you can dispense with arguing with us, and simply change the article following what the policy says. We will be happy to comply. In fact we'll be happy to help you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that will help you to gain a proper understanding of what Wiki policy actually is. Could you restrict yourself to noting statements of mine that you don't understand or find problematic? That would be far more helpful, I believe you would agree.Antinoos69 (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

While this would not be enough, Footnote 8 needs to link to actual sources, not just other wikipedia articles, per WP:WPNOTRS jj (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Theological Views" Section

I'm a bit dubious of this section, mostly because Gagnon is actually a biblical scholar. I'm also still partial to an "influence" section, myself. If one is going to have such a section, though, does it need so much structure, especially when it contains a single item? Maybe a paragraph with a well thought out topic sentence would be better, or a free-standing topic sentence followed by short corresponding paragraphs. In any case, as far as the current item goes, and if memory serves, I do believe Gagnon says something very similar in his book of 2001, which would be a much better source, I think. (I wonder if we'll hear complaints about both sources, though we certainly shouldn't.)Antinoos69 (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

For the record, I strongly disagree with the cavalier deletion of this section. It was based on a plainly incorrect understanding of Wiki policy.Antinoos69 (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Please spare us the claims we do not understand Wikipedia policy. I removed the section and I'll explain why, more for User:Henrybish's benefit since they're the ones that insist it be kept. Under "Inerrancy", the claim is that Gagnon does not subscribe to inerrancy, stating that: followed by a quote from his own website. This is what we call a primary source, and while not outright forbidden, they are to be avoided whenever possible. I am not an expert on theology (insert joke here), and I have no idea if User:Henrybish or you are. But verily, I shouldn't have to care. Because the correct way to do this is to provide the views of someone who has written about what Gagnon thinks about inerrancy. That's what we call a secondary source, and that's what we're looking for. If this person is so notable as to have rated a bio on Wikipedia, and have so many people intent on inserting material into it, then surely someone out there must have written a word or two about his views on inerrancy. And if that's not the case, then in the interest of verifiability we'd prefer that it stays off the article altogether. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you wish not to be accused of misconstruing Wiki policy, then stop misconstruing it.Antinoos69 (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69 And see next comment below.Antinoos69 (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Ok, didn't see this page. FreeRangeFrog - I am very suspect that this is what the avoidance of primary sources is intended for. My understanding is that they are to be avoided in situations when a person is making claims about themselves that are likely to be clouded by impartial judgement. For example, if an actor states: 'my show was brilliant, everybody loved it' - this is hardly impartial and there exists a clear motivation for exaggeration. However, in the present situation the quotations from Robert Gagnon are not doing anything like this since they are merely quotations that define his theological beliefs. It is the purest form of documentation since others who have an axe to grind may want to present him as something other than he is. It is best to let him define his own views in his own words. That is all I am doing. The current page is utterly worthless for those who know what Prof Gagnon is known for and the two theological views I added serve interested readers well. I look forward to your response.Henrybish (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I will point to the relevant part of WP:PRIMARY: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation Your edits imply interpretation, because obvious as the interpretation might seem to you, it is not to the rest of us. That is the reason we seek reliable, secondary sources. Surely someone out there has written about Gagnon's theological views? If that is the case then that's what we should be using, not direct quotes from his website. It's less important that the material is positive or negative than to ensure that we, as supposedly neutral documenters, do not engage in original research and therefore insert our own point of view into the article. So while you can use those quotes from the person's website, you cannot use them as the sole supporting reference for a claim like "Gagnon thinks x or y about z". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This seems a bit overly nit-picky since I'm making the most meagre interpretations that anyone can see is correct from the quoted text. I'm sure huge portions of many other articles would need to be deleted if this was consistently applied. But as you wish, I will remove my interpretation at the start and include only his quotes. But I note that someone had already removed my interpretation previously, and yet you still deleted it even then!Henrybish (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

“Henrybish” is absolutely correct. It is standard practice to believe that a scholar believes what he/she actually says or literally does in any particular work. If that constitutes “interpretation” for the purposes of “original research,” as you misguidedly presume, then you would be hurling us into an infinite process from which there is no escape and where all discussion constitutes “original research.” While modern hermeneutical theory may state that every act of reading, even of a grocery list, is also an act of interpretation, that is not the kind of “interpretation” Wiki policy has in mind. For example, consider we go in search of a second scholar who states in a particular work that Gagnon believes a certain thing, since we have been swayed by your belief that we can’t take Gagnon’s own word for it. How do we know that this one claim in this one work adequately reflects this second scholar’s general views on Gagnon? How do we know this second scholar hasn’t since changed his mind? For that matter, how do we know we haven’t misconstrued this second scholar’s words or argument? Certainly we would be engaged in “interpretation” and “original research” by your highly original view. We would therefore have to seek out a third scholar’s statement about this second scholar’s general view about Gagnon’s general view. And the same considerations as before would then lead us to a fourth, fifth, and sixth scholar. In general, we’d have to seek the view of an n-th scholar regarding the general views of scholar number (n-1), taking the limit of this process as n approaches infinity. And we would never get to say anything, which I suspect is your real purpose. This reductio ad absurdum proves the unviability of your view.Antinoos69 (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

You can certainly say that the bible says "In the beginning," but the significance of that has to come from a secondary source, even if the quotation is cited to a primary source. You cannot assume significance. jj (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Call for Official Mediation or Arbitration

I call for the next step in the official appeal process, mediation, between editors "jj," "FreeRangeFrog," "Henrybish," and myself to resolve our fundamentally incompatible views on Wiki policy. The issue to be mediated is: What are proper/best sources for a scholar's actual words and for what a scholar expressly or literally does in a particular work? We appear to have an unresolvable tie between two incompatible positions. It seems likely the dispute will continue to the next step, arbitration, so I would include some mention of that in my official call for mediation. If the other side fails to relent or comment constructively, I will place an official request for mediation/arbitration on June 18-19.Antinoos69 (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

I am going to caution you;  I already sought help from other users on an unbiased page, and FreeRangeFrog is who came around.  You are welcome to do as you please, but it is Wiki policy that is the issue.

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

I think it is very clear that that quote above, from WP: NOR will be interpreted as precluding primary reliance on primary sources jj (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Then you are very clearly mistaken. I am astonished by your dogged insistence on misconstruing the logic of the argument. Because no one is presenting “original research” or "novel interpretations" or “interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims,” or any other such, your reference is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It’s certainly irrelevant to anything I am doing. (See broader comment below). Merely tossing a reference onto the screen does not render it relevant or insightful. It must be accompanied by pertinent logical analysis. 

As there may also be some confusion of context, I will comment further. The sort of context your reference generally has in mind is as follows. Suppose one were discussing the construction of sexuality in ancient Greece. Primary sources would be things like Plato’s Symposium, the poetry of Theognis and Anacreon, Sappho’s Fragment 1, and various Greek vases. One could certainly go on saying a great many things about each of these sources without engaging in “original research,” provided one stuck to what these literally say and do, and to description. None of that would get us to what ancient Greek sexuality generally was, however. If we based general conclusions on these sources, we would be engaging in “original research,” since none of these sources expressly says or does anything regarding what ancient Greek sexuality generally was. We would need secondary sources for that, provided we stuck to what these secondary sources literally say and do; otherwise, we’d be engaged in “original research” with these sources, too. See? As this is the kind of situation most typically encountered on Wiki, this is what is generally meant by the emphasis on secondary sources. 

Here, however, we are discussing primary and secondary sources written by scholars on particular subjects, and reading them for those scholars’ views. If you can’t cite Gagnon for his views on matters he discusses without engaging in “original research,” then how can you cite other scholars for their views on some aspect of Gagnon that they discuss without engaging in “original research”? How could you use any sources without engaging in “original research”? Your position is simply untenable. (See that broader comment below).Antinoos69 (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

I agree completely with jj. Of course, a few quotes from the person's own writing can be included, but not to buttress synthesis and analysis in Wikipedia's voice. And we certainly don't call someone controversial and then tell readers to go read external links to verify that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As no one is engaged in "synthesis and analysis," I fail to understand the relevance of your comment. Perhaps you should clarify?Antinoos69 (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

I'm with jj and Cullen328 on this too. I've been watching but not chiming in much because FreeRangeFrog is doing a solid job of presenting the consensus view. Anyone is free to esclate, but I'd expect the prognosis to be poor. Antinoos69 would be well-advised to spend time finding secondary sources rather than arguing against the consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I will hardly be using citations that I would openly mock if encountered in my academic work.Antinoos69 (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

If you are unwilling to conceptualise the process of writing wikipedia BLPs as different to that of academic articles, but insist on doing it anyway, you have picked a very challenging furrow to plow. Good luck with that. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no dispute over the text of Wiki policies. The dispute is over its proper interpretation. Any relevant arguments, therefore, will be primarily logical in nature, not textual. I argue primarily on the basis of fundamental logical coherence. Every secondary source on a subject is also a primary source regarding the statements, views, and opinions on that subject of the scholar who wrote it. Consequently, however one construes “original research” with regard to primary sources is exactly the way it must be construed with regard to secondary sources. (This point should hardly come as news, as the concept of “original research” is defined independently of the type of sources involved, both by Wiki policy and generally in academia.) One must therefore be very careful to construe “original research” in such a way as to permit the use of secondary sources, considered such a focal interest on Wikipedia. Here, we are considering primary and secondary works written by scholars on a subject. In this case, if one construes quoting one of Gagnon’s works for his views on the subject of the quote as an instance of “original research,” then quoting another scholar’s work/passage on Gagnon for that scholar’s views on the aspect of Gagnon forming the quote’s subject must also be construed as an instance of “original research.” So what is left to quote? Likewise, if one construes citing one of Gagnon’s works/passages for what he literally does in that work/passage with regard to a particular matter as an instance of “original research,” then one must also construe citing another scholar’s work/passage on Gagnon for what that scholar literally does in that work/passage regarding Gagnon as an instance of “original research.” So what is left to cite without quoting? (These same considerations, obviously, apply to tertiary sources.) Your proposed interpretation of “original research” renders all discussion based on sources of any kind impossible and is consequently fundamentally logically incoherent and untenable. Wikipedia would have to close up shop. I therefore conclude that reading any such primary or secondary text for the views of its author on any subject expressly stated, or for some aspect of what that author literally does regarding that subject, DOES NOT constitute “original research.” And that is certainly something every scholar and graduate student on the planet already knows full well. Additionally, I would only cite WP:WPNOTRS (Quotations), which clearly states that all quotes are better cited to the original source rather than secondary sources. This, too, follows standard scholarly practice.Antinoos69 (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

I stand by my statements above.  There is lot more to a Wiki article than quotations, so what you've found is not inconsistent with my statements. jj (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You state "Any relevant arguments, therefore, will be primarily logical in nature, not textual."  This is where we disagree.  The policies in Wikipedia are well-established, and your logical arguments should go into the revision of those policies which do go against you, not in convincing us that your one quote from WP:WPNOTRS somehow trumps all the stuff about secondary sources we've quoted, including in foundational articles. jj (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Focusing on a brief parting thought of a carefully drawn out argument is counterproductive. I'm afraid that both you and everyone else will have to respond in very precise detail to my carefully presented arguments if you intend me to take you seriously. Again, we are disputing the proper interpretation of Wiki policy, not the text of the policy itself. If you or others are under the impression that is clear, then our discussion should provide certain proof that it is not. My premise is that, when deciding between two interpretations of a text, one must decide in favor of the one that avoids logical incoherence or contradiction, if either does. My interpretation avoids such problems. Yours does not, as already demonstrated twice. Everyone should make their detailed and specific comments in the appropriate sections.Antinoos69 (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

I've made two brief points above. jj (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We appear to be at an impasse.Antinoos69 (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

"Standard scholarly practice"

Wikipedia does not follow these standards, as it is an encyclopedia, not an academic publisher of original research. Scholarly publication emphasizes original research. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable, independent secondary sources say about a topic. This is an entirely different role with different rules. When the article topic is a person, then that person's own writings are primary and not independent of the topic. This is clear to experienced editors and is a core policy on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

And the fact that you would propose language directing readers to external links to advocacy websites to demonstrate that a person is "controversial" shows that you lack understanding of BLP policy, verifiability, proper referencing, and the inappropriateness of the links in question. It is essential that you understand and accept all of this if you are to be a successful collaborative editor working on BLPs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that both you and everyone else will have to respond in very precise detail to my carefully presented arguments in the sections above if you intend me to take you seriously. Again, we are disputing the proper interpretation of Wiki policy, not the text of the policy itself. If you or others are under the impression that is clear, then our discussion should provide certain proof that it is not. My premise is that, when deciding between two interpretations of a text, one must decide in favor of the one that avoids logical incoherence or contradiction, if either does. My interpretation avoids such problems. Yours does not, as already demonstrated twice. Everyone should make their comments in the appropriate sections above, not here.Antinoos69 (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

And your comments fail to reflect my discussion, where I carefully distinguish between standard academic practice and Wiki policy, noting both points of agreement and points of divergence. Also note that my "controversy" section is NOT the issue I intend to mediate, as stated in my original call for mediation. That will be a discussion reserved for after the general dispute over Wiki policy is resolved. (I have alternate strategies in mind for including the material that needs to be included).Antinoos69 (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69 I also made the same point you do about a scholar's work sometimes constituting a primary source; it was an essential element in one of my extended arguments, in fact. Are you even bothering to read what I write before responding to it? Again, respond in the appropriate sections above.Antinoos69 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

You are beginning with assumptions about the text that lead to contradictions: you basically deny that a scholar writing about Gagnon is a "secondary source" about Gagnon.  We don't make that inference-- a primary source is the actual person; a scholar is a secondary source.  This is why you see a contradiction when we don't. jj (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. See why I insist you cite me? I say a secondary source on Gagnon IS ALSO a primary source on the author's views on Gagnon, an undeniable fact with a crucial difference. I write carefully, expecting readers to read carefully. Give it a try. In any case, as also explicitly stated in my post that you loosely reference, Wiki policy defines "original research" independently from the kind of sources used. So your point is moot, anyway. The contradiction remains. I suggest you try rereading my post with great care. You might learn something.Antinoos69 (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

You could have written three fully-sourced, neutral biographies of this man by now. If you intend to escalate this, please do so. The venue for that is here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A simple way of understanding the issue.

If you look at the Bill Clinton article, you'll note that only about 5% of the cites are to Clinton's own autobiography. That is Wiki standard, no matter what the logical flaws in how we state that standard may appear. jj (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You therefore grant that one indeed may use primary sources in BLP, be it to quote or cite, as in the case of Clinton's autobiographical book. I assume you also would grant at least one such reference in any BLP. Correct?Antinoos69 (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

sure, but the key is the proportion, not the number. 5% of the cites would be a good benchmark. jj (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As Wiki policy makes no mention of your "5%," or any other concrete proportion, can I assume I can add one more sentence with a citation to a primary source? To conclude otherwise would appear to be a clear violation of Wiki policy on the permissibility of primary sources.Antinoos69 (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Well, no, the context of the cites are the key to the policy. jj (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean?Antinoos69 (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

I will be adding material, very brief, in accord with Wiki policy on June 18th or 19th.Antinoos69 (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

What I mean is that the interpretation of quotes must come from a secondary source. jj (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"the general dispute over Wiki policy"

This talk page is not the place to resolve any disputes about Wikipedia policy. Per WP:TALK, this talk page is only to be used for discussions about improving the article. We have an inexperienced editor with less than 50 edits who does not understand core policies and guidelines, despite repeated efforts by several other experienced editors to explain these policies which enjoy widespread consensus support. Together, those editors have over 65,000 edits to articles and discussion pages on a wide range of topics. The proper place to debate policy is the talk pages associated with the various policies. Let's confine this talk page for discussing specific proposals to improve this specific article. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We appear to be at an impasse. We can go nowhere until policy is settled. That is what I shall appeal.Antinoos69 (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Edit request

I request that the heading "Theological Views" be removed. This appears to be a remanent of earlier removal of content and makes no sense in the context of the current article. Restoring the heading, should some or all of the content be re-added, should be trivial. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Done Removed. The article is not fully protected, so it was OK to just remove it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Newly Added Material

I have added material cited to a primary source in accord with Wiki policy (WP:PRIMARY):

• First, "primary sources are permitted if used carefully"; 
• Second, "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia"; and
• Third, "[a] primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Furthermore, we agreed that primary sources may indeed be used in BLP, and Wiki policy provides no concrete proportions for primary sources in articles. As my "descriptive statement" about what is expressly and literally done in Gagnon's book constitutes a "statement of fact" that "can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge," it is clearly in compliance with Wiki policy.Antinoos69 (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

My sole concern is that you are emphasizing what you want from the book.  Let me work with it. jj (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Good start!  You'll notice I modified it a bit-- that's part of Wikipedia.  Anyhow, you can add a lot more if you are willing to include reliable sources beyond Gagnon himself jj (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the change is fine. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The change is unacceptable and no longer matches the reference. Whenever one pulls something from any source of any kind, one is pulling selected material only. Your concern is therefore invalid. I am reverting.Antinoos69 (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Do not modify again without gaining consensus first. I am willing to begin formal appeal over this matter, as it seems more than abundantly clear that certain editors are engaging in censorship.Antinoos69 (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

It seems to me that you added material without seeking consensus first, so maybe you shouldn't be so quick to point fingers. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Since I'm the other editor who changed it, it'll be up to Stuartyeates and FreeRangeFrog^croak to decide which version stays.  You never had consensus, so your appeal to wait for consensus before what you wrote is changed seems not to work. jj (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that one generally does not need consensus to add material that is in accord with Wiki policy, but that one does need consensus to make substantive changes to properly added material predictably against the wishes of the editor who added it.Antinoos69 (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Your understanding is flawed. When there is active and contentious discussion (as  there is here), any edit which might be challenged needs consensus. If the material was completely unrelated to previous contention (say maybe you found a source that described his family background, some hobby, or students he'd supervised) you could add it (and should add it); but not material directly related to the existing and long-standing contention exhibited on the talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If you'll recall, forewarning was given of new material about to be added three sections above. That was your time to object. You didn't. Don't cry about it now.Antinoos69 (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Having said that, you've shown exactly why secondary sources are so much easier for Wikipedia.  If "well-respected source" (secondary) has highlighted part of a primary work, then we don't need to have this debate on cherry-picking or not-- we just include whatever "well-respected source" says.  Have a great day! jj (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Then your problem is with clearly stated Wiki policy, as outlined at the start of this section. You also don't understand what cherry picking is--I had assumed you merely misspoke in your edit summary, expressing yourself correctly only here in the talk section. Cherry picking is the act of selectively and incompletely choosing evidence/data with the aim of supporting or confirming a predetermined argument or position. In other words, it's the production of a successful argument only by omitting important evidence/data. I, however, am providing no argument or position of any kind but merely presenting pure and objective fact without even a hint of editorializing. Your cherry-picking concerns are therefore inapplicable and unfounded. Of course, anyone is free to add whatever ADDITIONAL facts he/she pleases, provided he/she adhere to Wiki policy. Personally, I couldn't care less if anyone chooses to use primary sources, as long as it is done correctly (i.e., no original research). In fact, I will often prefer it. Just don't delete any of my facts.Antinoos69 (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

In defense of my revision (now reverted), we have no way of knowing either how Gagnon uses the cites listed or if he cites other, less-controversial folk without the book, thus begging the question.  My rephrasing of the issue is a more "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" then pointing out some (true, but likely POV) facts about his work. jj (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, Cherry picking is inapplicable to my added material. See previous comment above. As for your rewrite, you must be kidding. You replaced concrete, specific facts with a vague, vacuous, utterly superfluous, and incorrectly cited sentence. The edit attempt was inept. Think back to your freshman writing seminar days in college. What kind of grade do you imagine that edit would have gotten? Be serious, now.Antinoos69 (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

And if you were taking a class called "Editing Wikipedia in compliance with policies and guidelines", what sort of grade would you get? Be serious, now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I would get a very good grade, actually. Seriously.Antinoos69 (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Notability

The article in its current state does not show that the subject meets the general notability guideline. There are no independent sources cited, only his book and faculty page. This is not good. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Unless we come to a consensus on the independent sources to add, this article isn't going to meet the general notability guideline. I'm reluctant to put the article up for deleting in any sense while there are signs of discussion here, however. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that an official faculty page at an educational institution qualifies on Wiki as a suitable source that isn't primary or self-published. After all, the institution has faculty educational transcripts on file, and colleagues have the opportunity to read and object. Nor can material cited to a primary source constituting about one-third of its paragraph, and less than one-third of its article, be construed as "most" with regard to Wiki policy on allowable citation proportion to primary sources. I would hardly object, however, that Gagnon isn't particularly "notable," as he almost exclusively preaches to the choir, as it were. Still, some readers might want a little blurb on him.Antinoos69 (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

I am curious, though. If you were right about official faculty pages, or simply if you feel the way you do, then why, I wonder, did neither of you ever complain about the article's "notability" before, or move to have it deleted, long before I ever came on the scene, when it would have consisted entirely of one supposedly improper source, so obviously in defiance of Wiki policy? Most curious, wouldn't you say?Antinoos69 (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

The faculty page is considered reliable for biographical details once notability is established, but because it is not an independent secondary source, that type of coverage does not demonstrate that the topic is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. WP:ACADEMIC is the notability guideline that covers professors. However, a professor can fail this guideline, but be notable for some other reason, such as a popular, widely reviewed author of non-academic works or as an activist on public policy issues. I am expressing no opinion at this time as to whether Gagnon is or is not notable. I am simply pointing out shortcomings of the article in its current state.

With regards to your curiosity, I will speak for myself, and other editors can explain their involvement as they see fit. As I write, English Wikipedia has 4,264,072 articles. I have worked at least a little bit on roughly 1,000 articles, and have made substantive additions to several hundred. That is a tiny percentage of the entire encyclopedia. It is neither my responsibility nor is it humanly possible for me to address every single shortcoming on this encyclopedia. The reason I expressed no concerns before you came on the scene is that I had never even heard of Gagnon back then. We are all volunteers here, and we each have total freedom to choose which parts of the project we will be involved with, and how much of our time we will donate. I create new content in compliance with policies and guidelines, and you can see a list of those articles on my user page. I mentor and assist new editors, and you can see those interactions on my talk page and at Teahouse, a friendly spot for new editors to get help. I have participated in over 1500 deletion debates, and I discuss deletion outcomes on my user page. And I participate in the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. That is where editors committed to maintaining our BLP policy learn about problems with biographies. That is where I learned about this article, and put it on my watchlist, after you started editing it contrary to policy. I like monitoring articles about people I disagree with personally, because I believe that every single living person, no matter how unpleasant I find their views, deserves that protection. That applies to cold blooded mass murderers and to pathological liars as well as to conservative Christian professors.

There is no "defiance" here. Lots of Wikipedia articles have shortcomings, and experienced editors work every day to improve those articles. This particular article has shortcomings, and the solution is either to improve the article in a policy compliant way if the topic is notable, or to delete it if the topic is not notable. It's quite simple. Several editors have repeatedly tried without success to get you to understand the critical importance of citing significant coverage of the topic in reliable, independent, secondary sources. You are the one motivated to expand the article. The burden is on you to produce those types of sources if the article is to be kept and expanded. I might decide to help you if you would start editing in compliance with BLP policy. Until then, my main goal with this article is to protect it from BLP violations. I was hoping that you would come to see the essential need for such independent, reliable sources, and that you finding and adding those sources would take care of the notability issues. So far, you have not done so, and seem determined to proceed on the wrong path. So now, I have pointed out quite starkly the need for these sources. The ball is in your court. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. You are demonstrating the problem with a lack of controls for expertise on Wikipedia. I possess such expertise. Neither you nor the others do, very obviously. Either the article as I found it should never have existed, or it is now fine as it is. It seems your problem is with clearly stated Wiki policy on primary sources, as outlined at the start of the previous section. I suggest you try to have it changed, successfully, before continuing to whine here. You apparently consider yourself some sort of Wiki expert. Without scrutinizing the relative merits of such a credential, let me just say I am far from impressed. The facts I added are perfectly fine. Period. If others want to add more, then do so and stop crying about it. If others are too ignorant or inept or lazy to do so, then that simply is not and will not be my problem. Get it? To be clear, I will not be changing my views on any of this, ever. Nor am I inclined to buy into your claimed motivations, btw.Antinoos69 (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Let's be civil here.  Cullen openly opposes Gagnon's views.  He is only here to enforce the policies. Assume WP: Good Faith jj (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Civility is a two-way street. Cullen was uncivil and patronizing to me. Once he changes his tune, mine will change accordingly.Antinoos69 (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

• From a totally uninvolved corner, as far as my experience goes with my knowledge of BLP policy (which is fairly good because I helped craft some it), in its present cast, this article clearly fails all notability criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion on the deletion page appears to be moving towards keep jj (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Association fallacy

It seems to me that the final sentence of the article in its current form is implied guilt by association. The list of citations is to various people and groups well known for opposing homosexual behavior, and who are targets of criticism (well justified in my personal opinion) for that reason. It shouldn't be surprising that an anti-gay rights academic cites other anti-gay figures. What purpose is there for such a list, except to imply that he is a bad guy because he cites bad guys? How is that encyclopedic or reflective of the neutral point of view?

The impulse to resort to this technique highlights, in my opinion, the lack of significant coverage of Gagnon in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree.  I'll revert it to what I had said for the time being.  A newer user had made the change.  Feel free to help improve it. jj (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well done, jj. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Btw, this was discussed at length in a previous section. One's reaction to the facts presented will depend entirely on one's views on the people and organizations mentioned. I can personally assure you that there are people who love, adore, and revere them. They will generally take my sentence as an invitation to love, adore, and revere Gagnon, too. The sentence provides pertinent information about Gagnon, allowing one to differentiate between him and other biblical scholars writing on the topic. You are engaging in obvious censorship. I will return the material, without which the entire article must be deleted at once.Antinoos69 (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Editors who  have been around Wikipedia for a few years and have a couple of ten thousand edits under our belts, and who specialise in quality  issues usually  know what  they  are doing. The effort at  Wikipedia is to  remain civil  and objective; 'Views', or knowing  the subject  of an article under discussion intimately are not prerequisites for implementing  policy, and articles and content are not  kept  or deleted simply  on  the basis of 'I like/don't  like' them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You will be much more effective if you address the substantive points I make. It should be clear by now precisely what I think about various forms of pseudo-expertise, so I think you would do well to avoid referencing such with me.Antinoos69 (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Also repeatedly and inconceivably missed here is the fact that the modified version of my sentence would be incorrectly cited. An incorrect citation is inept and unacceptable anywhere. Those without the source before them simply have no business attempting to modify my sentence. This is a basic and fundamental principle, guys.Antinoos69 (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Actually, since the pages cite those people, they also stand for the proposition that Gagnon cites secular sources.jj (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether those people and organizations, and their views, are secular is, in fact, highly debatable, to say the least. The claim would certainly constitute a contentious interpretation, in any case. The debates on the matter are notorious. See how subject-matter expertise comes in handy?Antinoos69 (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

I would rv, but it's not my place. jj (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 and Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, I agree with you it should be reverted.  I'll change it now, but I'll not risk breaking the 3RR, so I'll need your help. jj (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems there has been some activity, but I'll simply address the current state of things. Your added sentence is unsourced. Can I assume you've actually read and have before you the sources in question? Previous discussion with you has very strongly suggested that you haven't and don't. If so, you have absolutely no business substantively editing regarding them. It is a basic, central, and fundamental principle of research, including on Wikipedia, that one may comment on, quote, cite, describe, or use only sources one has read in their entirety and has before one. This is obvious and universally known. Anything else is inept and improper conduct. I strongly suggest you stop immediately, or I may have to somehow report you. Surely we can avoid such a situation, no?Antinoos69 (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

I would only add that your added sentence is superfluous. Every secondary work on the Bible by a scholar cites both ancient and modern works. Your sentence sounds silly, amateurish, and embarrassing. You would do well to remove it, I think.Antinoos69 (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

For clarity, I'm not the IP that just deleted the NARTH et al reference. Antinoos, perhaps you can build different sentences but at least 3 different users have questioned that one. jj (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The NARTH reference was borderline WP:SYNTH, since the bare fact of citation doesn't even tell us what Gagnon thinks; and inferring what Gagnon thinks would be WP:OR. I've looked for independent WP:RS that discuss Gagnon's references to NARTH, but have not found any (although there is plenty of other commentary on Gagnon). -- 202.124.75.22 (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

As has already been discussed at length, none of your objections apply. And you need only read the material to see precisely what Gagnon cites and how, which is all the policy on primary sources requires, as previously quoted in another section. I will therefore return the material. 

I am concerned, however, that you are engaging in improper research. Have you actually read the books in question, and are merely posting online links to relevant excerpts, or are you merely Internet fishing, without actually having read the material? That would be inappropriate. If I don't get some assurances soon, I will delete the new material.Antinoos69 (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

I draw your attention to the policies WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. "Reading the material to see precisely what Gagnon cites and how" fails those policies. What we require is WP:RS discussing Gagnon's argument and his citations. And I have indeed posted references to things I've read, but Wikipedia contributions are not judged on hypotheses about the editor, they are judged on policies such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and of course WP:AGF. The article in its current form, though too brief, is at least sourced according to Wikipedia policy. -- 202.124.72.6 (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Consequently I have reverted your reintroduction of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Even the strongest supporters of gay rights cite the work of Paul Cameron, Joseph Nicolosi, NARTH, and The Family Research Institute. What's important is what they say, and for that we need 3rd-party WP:RS discussing the citations. In addition, anything in Gagnon's book that isn't discussed by 3rd-party WP:RS fails notability. -- 202.124.72.6 (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Nothing in the policies you cite applies to my material. In fact, WP:PRIMARY clearly states that "[a] primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge," as previously quoted. My material clearly meets this standard. Nevertheless, I will make what should have been an unnecessary clarification that just as obviously meets the WP:PRIMARY standard. If you don't like the standard, then I suggest you have it changed before editing again. To be clear, I am merely "describing" what is expressly and literally done in Gagnon's work, as "any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge" can verify. That is Wiki's standard.Antinoos69 (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

You misinterpret WP:PRIMARY, I'm afraid. At best you could use a primary source to back up a direct quote. What you've done is very clear WP:OR, and thus in breach of WP:BLP. I also note (again) that anything in Gagnon's book that isn't discussed by 3rd-party WP:RS fails notability, and I request that you don't edit my comments on this page.-- 202.124.74.11 (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, anything Gagnon says about e.g. NARTH is such a minor and peripheral part of his book that nobody feels that it's worth responding to -- in contrast to, say, Gagnon's "natural law" argument. -- 202.124.74.11 (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are flagrantly disregarding WP:PRIMARY, which very clearly states the standard for using primary sources. One simply is not limited to non-primary sources, and the very idea is absurd on its face. The Clinton article, cited by others above, is clear proof that primary sources may stand alone on their own merits. Again, and as extensively discussed by me on this page, "original research" has nothing to do with my material, not even remotely. I suggest you familiarize yourself with basic research principles. You will be unable to pursued me with vague references and will have to be painstakingly specific and unambiguous. I suggest you don't edit my material any further, which I will now return.Antinoos69 (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

As I said, you're misinterpreting WP:PRIMARY. For you personally to interpret a primary source is WP:OR, even if you consider the interpretation to be obvious. And WP:BLP requires that "poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article." -- 202.124.72.18 (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you are misinterpreting all cited policies. The simple assertion does not an argument make. Would you care to argue? Then begin. I am interpreting nothing but merely reading the source for what it expressly and literally does, which is never "original research." Again, I provide  "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."Antinoos69 (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Several editors on this talk page have explained why your edits are unacceptable. You were using the fact that X cites Y to imply that X endorses Y in some way: this is not only WP:OR, but an invalid "guilt by association" argument, as noted above. In any case, the existing sourced material in the article adequately informs the reader who Robert Gagnon is. I suggest that you abide by the WP:CONSENSUS of the editors on this page, or initiate formal dispute resolution. Meanwhile, WP:BLP requires that "poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article." -- 202.124.72.18 (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the IP, and will revert any addition again.  Be careful that you don't violate WP:3RRjj (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nonsense. These "editors," at least one of whom goes around discussing sources he has neither read nor seen (so much for "Wiki expertise"!), have failed to make their case. You, in particular, clearly have no idea what I'm doing. I am indisputably not "using the fact that X cites Y to imply that X endorses Y in some way," as you incorrectly surmise, probably because you have never laid eyes on Gagnon's book either, and couldn't care less about what I'm actually doing. I am simply reading how Gagnon expressly and literally uses Y to expressly and literally support his argument, and then saying that Gagnon expressly and literally uses Y to expressly and literally support his argument. That is providing "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge," as per WP:PRIMARY, which you and others so seem to dislike, which is entirely your problem, naturally. One explicit example that Wiki policy provides of proper use of primary sources is the description of the plot of a work. If that doesn't constitute OR, then clearly my description doesn't either. And you will find me utterly impervious to the bullying of the misinformed.
• More broadly, consider the staggering absurdity of your position. The policy on BLP clearly states it is applicable not only in articles on LP but throughout Wikipedia with regard to LP. In citing living scholars on Gagnon, you are using these living scholars' works as primary sources for their views on Gagnon. In your misreading of Wiki policy, that would be a violation of policy on BLP committed in the process of attempting to avoid violating policies on BLP. You would need third-person descriptions of these scholars' views on Gagnon instead, hurling us into an endless search for third-person sources. You would have rendered the use of all sources by LP invalid. You have a very serious problem, clearly demonstrating the invalidity of your position.Antinoos69 (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69
• Also, my statement can't be accused of "guilt by association," since very many people--largely socially conservative religious folk, of whom there are many--don't consider the people and organizations I reference "guilty."Antinoos69 (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

The inference from the fact of citation to an implied support is in breach of WP:SYNTH, is ruled out by WP:PRIMARY (I quote: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so"), and is required to be immediately removed from the article under WP:BLP. In this particular case, where Gagnon was steering a very careful course around the objections of his publisher, employer, and denomination, Wikipedia could very well be looking at an action for libel if WP:BLP is breached. It therefore behoves us to follow the rules. -- 203.171.197.10 (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

More utter nonsense, incorrect interpretations of both Wiki policy and what I'm doing, and aimless babble. Your reference to WP:SYNTH is particularly unfathomable. I can't begin to imagine where your thinking went wrong there, as nothing in the policy even remotely addresses my statement, and I cite only one source. What could you possibly be thinking with this patently absurd reference? As for WP:PRIMARY, again, I indisputably DO NOT "inference from the fact of citation to an implied support," as you incomprehensibly misconstrue my statement. In the passages from his one book that I cite, he expressly, explicitly, and literally does precisely what I say. There can be no question. He is expressly and literally using those sources to support his argument, plain as day. Get it? (Try actually reading the passages, for an astonishing change.) It's like describing the plot of a work, explicitly allowed by WP:PRIMARY, as you all too conveniently ignore. I merely provide "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge"--you know, that Wiki policy you so obviously hate. I have absolutely no idea why you are so incapable of understanding any of this. There is therefore, quite obviously, no violation of policies on BLP. So get over it.Antinoos69 (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Agreed, also a "primary source" on Gagnon is Gagnon.  People who discuss what he says are secondary sources.  You are free to escalate this discussion. jj (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Note - User Antinoos69 reported for edit warring again. See [1] - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Let me summarise:
  • WP:PRIMARY says: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
  • As jj says, a "primary source" on Gagnon is Gagnon.  People who discuss what he says are secondary sources. We would need secondary sources (ideally, direct quotes from notable authors) that support the claim that Gagnon is indeed "using those sources to support his argument" in a significant way.
  • The claim that Gagnon is "using those sources to support his argument" in a significant way is an interpretation per WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, not a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts."
  • As far as I can tell, from what I've read from Gagnon and his critics, those sources are not being used that way by Gagnon, and are therefore not mentioned at all by people refuting him.
  • WP:BLP requires us to be very careful about sourcing and about avoiding WP:OR/WP:SYNTH in an article about a living person.
  • The consensus here is clear: not to include Antinoos69's sentence, which is in my opinion unnecessary anyway, since the article already describes Gagnon's point of view.
  • Another policy worth reading is WP:CIVIL.
  • Also, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. -- 203.171.197.14 (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Wrong again. You are confusing "interpretation" in modern hermeneutical theory, in which every act of reading is also an act of interpretation, with "interpretation" in Wiki policy, which explicitly provides describing the plot of a work as an example of the proper use of primary sources. It THAT fails to constitute "interpretation" for the purposes of Wiki policy, then so must reading a book for what is explicity and expressly being argued and cited. Therefore, there can be no question that my material constitutes "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge," per WP:PRIMARY. 
    • As for your egregious incompetence, "As far as I can tell, from what I've read from Gagnon and his critics, those sources are not being used that way by Gagnon, and are therefore not mentioned at all by people refuting him," you are saying that, because you have found no critics of Gagnon who cite the passages I do or mention the sources he cites therein, and because whatever ELSE you've read by Gagnon makes no mention of the material, Gagnon therefore cannot do what I claim he does in the passages I cite. Need I really state the obvious imbecility of any such claim? Are you really such a mindless simpleton? Is that really your idea of proper research? Then I can only offer you my condolences. (And so much for your vacuous "Wiki expertise"!) UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY READ THE PASSAGES I CITE, WHICH IS THE EXPLICIT STANDARD IN WP:PRIMARY, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO VALID BASIS FOR YOUR ABSURD CLAIM. Period. So I dare you, read the passages and tell me otherwise. Or are you just too lazy to go to a library? That would be your problem and your disqualification from discussing this matter further.Antinoos69 (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69
      • (1) Every experienced Wikipedian is telling you you're misreading Wikipedia policy, that should say something. (2) WP:CIVIL, please. (3) Our interpretations of those passages obviously differ, but what you think or I think about Gagnon's text is irrelevant; what's important is what secondary sources say. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly violating WP:PRIMARY. Are you claiming in point (3) that you have read the passages from Gagnon that I cite and that they do not do what I claim? Then you are a vile and worthless liar, as I will now prove. You asked for it. All bracketed numbers refer to footnotes.

• • • • • • CAMERON AND FRI: In a section called "The Elasticity of Sexual Behavior" (418-20), criticizing "assumptions that homosexuality is an immutable condition; that people who identify themselves as homosexual are locked into a lifelong condition" (418), he begins a paragraph by referencing, "A nationwide random survey of 4,340 adults in five U.S. cities, conducted in 1983 by the Family Research Institute" (419), providing various statistics supportive of his claim of "elasticity." The final sentence reads, "Over half of all people who had ever been homosexually aroused (59% of women and 51% of men) were currently heterosexual.[130]" (419). In that footnote 130 on that same page, the paragraph's only one, we find three sources cited, all by Paul Cameron. The first is, "Paul Cameron et al., 'Sexual Orientation and Sexually Transmitted Disease,' Nebraska Medical Journal 70 (1985): 292-99," followed by another in Psychological Reports, and finally, "results cited in Cameron, The Gay Nineties, 71-74."
          • NARTH: In a section called "Can Homosexuals Change?" (420-29), in which he concludes regarding the basic question, "We have argued strongly up till now that homosexuals can change; or, more precisely, that at least some homosexuals, including some who claim to have been exclusively homosexual in orientation, are capable of change" (428), he begins a paragraph with, "In 1997 NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) surveyed 882 clients who, it was thought, had experienced some amount of change in sexual orientation" (421). Without in any way disputing that survey, he concludes the paragraph, "Although critics of change sometimes charge that reorientation therapies do harm to clients, the survey indicated substantial improvements in clients' self-esteem and emotional stability.[135]" (421). That footnote 135 on that same page consists entirely of, "'The Results of the 1997 NARTH Survey on Change,' self-published and distributed by NARTH (www.narth.com)." 
          • NICOLOSI: In attempting to argue against a study by Daryl J. Bem, he writes, "Its weakness, as psychologist Joseph Nicolosi points out, is that it 'gives no consideration to the boy's authentic needs for acceptance, affection and approval from members of the same sex'" (411). He then quotes extensively from Nicolosi, providing a footnote 115, consisting entirely of, "Joseph Nicolosi, 'A Critique of Bem's E.B.E. Theory,' n.p. [updated Aug. 5, 1999]. Online: http://www.narth.com/docs/critique.html" (brackets in original). 

Any questions? I will assume the audacious lies and incompetent research methods will now stop.Antinoos69 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

To the contrary the dispute was never about what Gagnon says. If he had said the earth was flat and the sun is a illusion, but a secondary source hadn't reported that, we still wouldn't be able to put that in ~ Secondary sources are how we know what will be important to the broader community. Sorry, it's fine research, but your quarrel is with WP standards. jj (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

One editor, User:Antinoos69, has been edit warring for weeks to insert his/her preferred content against consensus. That editor's talk page comments here have grown increasingly uncivil as time has gone by. All attempts to explain the policies and guidelines that have enabled Wikipedia to create this incredibly successful free information resource, the #6 website in the world, have been summarily rejected by this editor. This editor rejects the core value that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, claiming the privilege of "special expertise". As time has passed, it has become clear that we are dealing with tendentious editing. These edits show a desire to grind an axe, rather than to edit collaboratively and cooperatively. Accordingly, I encourage every editor watching this page to revert disruptive edits on sight in compliance with policy limits such as 3RR, and to report any future disruptive editing to appropriate administrative noticeboards, such as WP:3RR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What is abundantly clear is that I am the only one here who has read Gagnon's book of 2001. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is incompetent to comment on sources one hasn't read.Antinoos69 (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

In fact, some of us have also read Gagnon. More importantly, we have read and understood the relevant Wikipedia policies WP:OR, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:BLP. -- 202.124.73.39 (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Other editors are reminded that, per WP:BLP, contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. -- 202.124.73.39 (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please. There is no question that you have not bothered to check the passages I cite, if you've ever read them, at all. See my previous comment in the preceding section before you even think about lying about the matter. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, so stop speaking from your position of extreme ignorance. You might also consider taking a look at WP:PRIMARY, which you fail to understand.Antinoos69 (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

WP:PRIMARY says, in fact, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." -- 202.124.74.24 (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy

I can find no evidence to support the notion thatWould you please confirm that you also have the account DCaryHart and that you have been editing while logged out from 65.28.174.107? Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Gagnon is no longer with PTS. He still has a faculty bio at PTS and his "current" CV lists PTS as his employer. There is nothing in the article to either date or substantiate his departure. Moreover, the main body of the article is inconsistent with the sidebar in that regard.

David Cary Hart (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Homonymy

There is at least one case of homonymy with Robert Gagnon, Professor of history of science at Montreal Polytechnic University in Canada, who is also an author of novels. I would like to disable the redirect to create a dedicated page.--S.vecchiato (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)