Talk:J. Michael Bailey

ROGD

I have added a subsection on ROGD following the suggestion. Hist9600 reverted me here. According to the guidelines on biographies of living persons, at WP:BLPSPS: it states "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". Michael wrote the article on 4thwavenow, therefore it can be used. I have not used it as WP:Wikivoice. Unherd article also follows a similar principle. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th I also think your revert is incorrect here. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedia content requires independent reliable sources to establish the notability of that content. Wikipedia articles are not a dumping ground for any and all sketchy sources just because they may have been written by the article subject. This especially goes for fringe websites, blogs, etc., that are advancing controversial views. Hist9600 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Second comment: also according to WP:SELFSOURCE, "questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met" ? Zenomonoz (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Third comment: also according to WP:QUESTIONABLE "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties". These are not claims about third parties, rather, they are from the horses mouth. Also WP:RSOPINION suggests they are fine for getting the opinion on a biographical Wikipedia page. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

So the question here is not one of verifiability, or WP:ABOUTSELF, it's one of due weight and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and for content to be included it must be of encyclopaedic relevance.

For the 4thWaveNow content, why is a blog post he co-authored with Blanchard on a fringe and non-notable website, more notable than say any of the four research papers they have co-authored together? Why is including this encyclopaedic content? What is it that makes this due for inclusion? What do independent reliable sources say about this? Do they even discuss it in any way, or has it largely gone unnoticed?

As for the paper that was retracted by the journal, the same question of, what is it that makes this due for inclusion applies. Why do we need to note that Bailey co-authored the paper, and that it was later retracted by Springer? What have independent reliable sources said about this retraction? Do they even discuss it in any way, or has this largely gone unnoticed? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd be interested in other editors opinions. Retraction of a work by any researcher is a notable event in ones career, it has been covered in academic media. Just to check: should the section on the Donald Templer article about the retraction of his 2012 article (linking intelligence and pigment) be removed because the only sources are Elsevier (the publisher) and RetractionWatch (an academic blog?). It seems according to your high bar for notability (for a biography of living person), it should be removed and not discussed? Zenomonoz (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

We aren't discussing the content on another article, as the local consensus at another article isn't strictly relevant to this article.

Retraction Watch might not be a usable source here, at least for demonstrating due weight, as per a discussion at WP:RSN it seems to be covered by WP:BLOGS. Though it has been mentioned a couple of times more recently at RSN, its status as a self-published blog doesn't appear to have been. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You'd even be opposed to having the Bailey-diaz article (springer) and the retraction note (springer) included? E.g.: "In 2023, Springer retracted Bailey's paper on Rapid Onset Gender due to noncompliance with Springer's editorial policies on consent". Surely by that standard then citations to all of Bailey's research would need to be removed? I don't think that is normal. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that the article has issues. The research section is very CV/résumé like, and the citations to Bailey's work tell us nothing about why that work is notable nor how it was received by his peers. There is some independent sourcing in there though which helps offset it a little, but . The Man Who Would Be Queen section likewise is overly detailed, and has been tagged as such since October 2022. The only reasonable sections from a skim seem to be Education and career, and Appearances in news media, as those are heavily reliant on independent reliable sources, though the fucksaw section might need a small trim (would need to check the sources to see how much weight we should be giving this).

The guiding question when writing any article about a person is not "what does the person say about themselves or their work?" It's "what do other people say about the person and their work?" Citations sourced solely to the person in question tell us nothing about how that person's and their work is perceived by others.

As for the retraction note, I'm opposed to including it here until its dueness is demonstrated. And the way to demonstrate that is with independent reliable sources that discuss the retraction. We discussed the retraction back in June 2023 over at the ROGD talk page, and the low quality of the sources available at that time were a large concern for mentioning it there, especially with regards to due weight. Those same concerns exist for mentioning it here as well. The Retraction Watch source could potentially be helpful for properly attributed content should dueness be demonstrated through other sourcing, but as mentioned before it doesn't contribute directly towards assessing dueness in general. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Retraction is notable: it reflects on both the quality of your work and its reception by your peers. Most authors never have a paper retracted. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to add, the open letter from a number of signatories, researchers and groups asking for the study to be retracted by Springer also adds to the notability of the ROGD study: https://asbopenletter.com/ and an article about it.Zenomonoz (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The open letter, as with the Retraction Watch source, would not contribute towards dueness of content. It's a primary source, and is related in part to why the paper was retracted. The Medpage Today article on the other hand is useful here, it seems to be a reliable source, and goes into a reasonable amount of detail about the circumstances leading to the retraction. I'm not convinced that it's enough on its own, I'd really like to see at least one other reliable source before we could start to think about how much we should write about this. Once we have that, we should also discuss whether it's better to include the content here, or on the ROGD controversy article, as that article might be a more relevant location for it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer that ROGD-related controversy materials go in the article for that. It's a fairly fringe theory that really requires editor care and attention. I'm not convinced that Bailey's article and the retraction really warrant mention on Wikipedia, since there is a relative lack of independent reliable sources for it. But if something were to be added, I would think the ROGD controversy article would be the more appropriate place. Hist9600 (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

A researcher having a paper retracted is a big controversy in their career. The guidelines indicate it should be just fine, your personal preference is not a factor here. Sideswipe9th has stated they don't want to link to the Bailey paper because of a 'Streisand effect', but we do not need to take into account what Bailey said on Twitter (it’s irrelevant). This is a biography about a living person. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Since outside perspectives are being solicited here, I'll weigh in to say that Sideswipe9th and Hist9600 appear to have the right idea. If the retraction is a big enough deal, it will be covered in reliable secondary sources. The Medpage Today article is solid, but I'd like to see at least one more. Until that time, we should err on the side of exclusion per e.g. WP:BLP: 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—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. As Sideswipe has pointed out, the point of contention here is not verifiability but rather WP:DUE, which is part of our core policy of WP:NPOV. Generalrelative (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, there is: Medpage article. A National Review article (not my favourite source, but it is not deemed unreliable), and the RetractionWatch article (no consensus on that, but as a third source it's probably acceptable as it is a major academic news-blog with impartial reporting). I think the original Springer retraction notice is also fine to cite for the reader, not for establishing notability. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Per Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article, alongside the lack of consensus for or against its reliability (see RSP entry) I would not consider the National Review article to contribute towards due weight here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

but we do not need to take into account what Bailey said on Twitter (it’s irrelevant) In most cases you would be right. However given that Bailey has expressed that he wants to Streisand this thing with respect to the retraction, and the well documented amplification effect adding content to a Wikipedia article, we need to be very careful that content we add here constitutes due weight. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Linking to news sources covering a retraction is not the same as linking directly to the Bailey/Diaz article. The retraction should be included because it is covered in the media( MedPage and RetractionWatch). I don't see how his tweet has any bearing on the topics weight. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Including content that doesn't meet due weight could very likely have the Streisand effect that Bailey wants. That is why we need to be absolutely careful in this instance. We've already discussed above the issues with Retraction Watch contributing to due weight, so we don't need to go over them again. We need at least one more generally reliable media source before content can be considered for inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but Bailey wanting a ‘Streisand effect’ still has no relevance to the question of including content. I think we need more outside views at this point. If @JzG sees this: is the MedPage Today and RetractionWatch coverage acceptable here for including one or two sentences on the retracted paper? Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok seems I found another source. Medscape covered the retraction: https://www.medscape.com/s/viewarticle/992561 Zenomonoz (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That Medscape article is a republishing of the Retraction Watch article, linked earlier in this discussion. You can easily tell this because it has the Retraction Watch logo in the byline. As such that would not constitute due weight. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to dramatize the retraction or infer that it is some career-altering event. We shouldn't necessarily be making that judgment as editors. The fact that this is a biography of a living person is actually reason to not infer a dramatic event, and to be careful about what we are adding. It's unclear to me to what degree this retraction is in fact notable. Most of the sources mentioning it are unreliable sources, some of which are quite fringe. Some sources mentioned in this section, for example Retraction Watch, are specifically about retractions. They are publishing retractions anyways, so the fact that such a source exists does not really establish the notability of this particular retraction relative to the article subject. Hist9600 (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Informing participants that this issue has been brought to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#J. Michael Bailey. Generalrelative (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• I think we can mention the retraction, cited to MedPage and RetractionWatch, but that it doesn't need a dedicated subsection. In general, the structure of the Research section is poor. If we trim down the lengthy descriptions of studies, cited only to the studies themselves, it could likely be a couple of subsections like "Sexuality" and "Other research". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Update on feedback: please refer to the discussion on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#J. Michael Bailey. It seems the consensus is to add reference to the retraction, including support from long standing editors and mods who expressed very similar opinions to my own. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment on notability

Just a comment here for Hist9600 and Sideswipe9th as you both made comments here suggesting the retraction was not notable (not doing this to be annoying, rather to help with editing going forward). Per Mathglot, this is a misunderstanding of notability. WP:Notability applies to the topic of an article, but not to the article's content. The content of an article has to be verifiable, but it does not have to be notable. Hope this clears this up and helps with any editing going forward. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:N refers to notability in that specific context, but notability is still relevant with regard to the article content in the sense covered by WP:DUE, WP:PROPORTION, etc. The main issue with the ROGD content initially was that early coverage was done mostly by unreliable, poor quality sources that were inappropriate for a BLP. Hist9600 (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, not seeing the words notable or notability at all in WP:DUE or WP:PROPORTION? Think it's best to use clear terminology here to avoid confusion. But no worries. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Trimming content

Hi again @Generalrelative, I agree parts of the article can be trimmed down and focus on secondary sources. However, a lot of his research already covered is also covered in secondary sources. The The Man Who Would Be Queen would qualify as a secondary source when talking about Bailey's research (it summarises his research in the context of other research, and its limitations). It is acceptable to include the primary source to the study alongside the secondary source as it allows the reader to verify it. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, just to add, you were removing content that was covered in secondary source like the New York Times, while saying you were removing 'primary' sources in your edit summary. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of points to address here, just relating to this BOLD edit where I removed a large chunk of WP:PRIMARY text per FFF's suggestion above. But you didn't only revert that edit. There were a number of changes I made to the article which you reverted without discussion. We can take them in turn.

1. My reasoning for removing the PRIMARY material is that it appears to run afoul of NPOV, since the stuff this figure gets actual coverage for seems overwhelmingly to be controversy. Padding out the bio with whole paragraphs sourced only to him –– rather than to reliable source that have evaluated his work –– has the effect of obscuring what he is in fact notable for.
2. The piece by Nicholas Wade published in the New York Times includes a quote and paraphrase by Bailey. We are not really using the source in a SECONDARY capacity, i.e. to provide evaluations of Bailey's work, but merely to platform his own words. The real issue with Wade is that everything he writes is deeply suspect (so it's good that we're not presenting his evaluations as reliable). Though technically you are correct that it is a SECONDARY source, it is only reliable in so far it is acting as PRIMARY.
3. Moving on to some of the other material. This edit was reverted without discussion, which appears to me to be unreasonable. Not only did I make unobjectionable copyedits to the text (like changing attacked to criticized), but I added a crucial bit of information highlighted in the cited SECONDARY source: Critics argued that the paper disregarded countervailing evidence and was based upon an unrepresentative sample of participants.
4. Given the high proportion of RS coverage devoted to controversy surrounding this figure, some modest mention of this fact is warranted in the lead per MOS:LEAD, as I argued in my edit summary here. But you reverted that edit too without bothering to say why.

There are other, minor points which could be discussed but I'll leave it at that for now. I'm certainly open to collaboratively working through of these issues. Input from other editors would be welcome. Generalrelative (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

In general, I like the changes that were made to trim down content. There was a lot that was from primary sources and otherwise pretty poorly sourced stuff. This type of thing is pretty common for the articles of some of these figures associated with sexology, but it's still a problem. It's good to summarize when possible using independent reliable sources. We don't need to collect all the details from the studies from the primary sources....

I also think the section for The Man Who Would Be Queen is extremely detailed and long, and basically reads like the subject's own attempts to defend himself. Not really necessary for this article. Not the appropriate place to go into that level of detail, as the book has its own article. So I would be good with trimming down that section as well. Hist9600 (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Hist9600. I think the work that Generalrelative did on trimming down was positive, as the article currently relies far too heavily on primary sources and direct citations to Bailey's work. It's important to remember that we're not here to document how the article subject describes themself, but how others published in reliable sources describe them.

As for the section on The Man Who Would Be Queen, ideally that should be a summary style section which otherwise defers back to the primary article on that topic. The bulk of the content about the book itself and its reception belongs in the dedicated article about the book. And whatever we summarise here should never, ever, contain content that is not included in the primary article. That lengthy quotation from Boyd is not present in the article about the book. I've not done an exhaustive search on that article's history yet, but I've spot checked revisions going back to March 2018 and haven't seen it included there at all, nor has it ever been mentioned on the article's talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I have reinstated your copyedits as I agree with them. However, with regards to the changes to the ROGD I kept it brief because that was the general recommendation on noticeboard. Extending it as you did "critics said XYZ" is not actually relevant to the retraction at all, and would then warrant extension of the whole paragraph with Bailey's argument about academic freedom etc. It's sensible to simply state that it was retracted for consent issues, and interested readers can read the article. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Brief is fine by me, but as it stands the reader is given no sense of *why* the paper was retracted. This is stuff that's covered in the SECONDARY sources, so not including it is odd, especially since the current version of the article contains so much content sourced only to the BLP subject. And really, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the paragraph was long after I got done with it. Generalrelative (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure The Man Who Would Be Queen really fits the definition of a secondary source, and it certainly doesn't fit the definition of an independent source. I don't think a source meets the definition of being secondary when in part it's reviewing the work of the source's author. There is a real conflict of interest there because the source author is naturally going to want to defend and/or promote their own work as part of the review. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. An author commenting on their own work is definitely not a WP:SECONDARY analysis of that work, nor does it establish notability or due weight for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Generalrelative (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not an independent reliable source. Hist9600 (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

TMWWBQ is an acceptable source for a biography of a living person, especially since it was not self published. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

We generally do not cite autobiographical works in our biographical articles, as they fail the independent sources test. It also doesn't matter that it wasn't self-published, it was self-authored. Bailey wrote the work, and like any academic he is not an objective observer on his own research. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a secondary source in my reply. It probably isn't. I am saying that primary sources are acceptable for certain things, like clarifying opinions and views. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

We can all agree on that. What such a source cannot do is establish notability for inclusion of any specific details. Generalrelative (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

We cite autobiographies all the time. We also cite Facebook posts and tweets and all sorts of sources written by the subjects of BLP articles. None of them can demonstrate notability, because they're not independent, but this isn't AFD, so that's an irrelevant consideration.

An author commenting on their own work can be a secondary source. See Wikipedia:Party and person#Combinatorics for a brief explanation. It looks like it would be a good idea for editors to review WP:PRIMARYNEWS as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup, thank you. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that we restore this version and then work collaboratively to improve from there on a point-by-point basis. Generalrelative (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The version that's currently present has some rather large NPOV issues due to heavy reliance on primary sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, it is close enough to the present one. But I take issue with it putting his research under "other research" and below the section on his book. His primary profession is that of a researcher, so, that comes first IMO. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit by Zenomonoz is good. I'll amend my proposal to revert and and then re-include that sentence since it is now adequately sourced. I'm also happy to place the Research section above the section discussing the book. My reason for moving discussion of the book to the top had as much to do with chronology (it came out before any of the research discussed in the Research section once I'd trimmed it) as anything else. But now that point is moot. Generalrelative (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Might be easier to just implement the changes you made manually rather than reverting to that version. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

If you'll agree to it I'll be happy to do it in the easiest way I know how. I'll also keep the bit about "gaydar" where you've just provided a reference. Haven't been able to access the text of the book to verify but I trust it is as you say. Generalrelative (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the current section on his research can be improved with secondary sources, so removing stuff is fine (I can always look at the edit history if there is anything notable that might be in a secondary source). Also, I am not sure about the "His work has attracted numerous controversies" in the opening per WP:CRITS. The problem is, his book (and opinions) have attracted most of the controversy. Two (?) studies, one on bisexuals (which he did concede was flawed, and followed up) and the ROGD paper have certainly attracted controversy, but to suggest "his work attracted numerous controversies" seems overstated for two out of 242 publications. The opening already focuses on the controversy surrounding TMWWBQ. While the present article weighs heavy on controversy, that is because it lacks reference to secondary sources which focus on non-controversial research/opinions, e.g. writing to the president of Nigeria against LGBT discrimination. The article needs to weigh less heavily on the controversy (which yes also includes trimming TMWWBQ section) Zenomonoz (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing with CRITS is that it's about criticism or controversy sections, not content about a person's work being subject to criticism or controversy. For all that's bad in this article, we don't actually have a criticism section as that essay defines it, as the critical commentary on Bailey's work is spread evenly throughout the content and is put into context. Succinctly stating in the lead that Bailey's work has attracted numerous controversies may well be a fair (using speculative tense here because I don't know what this article will look like after we're finished trimming) summary of the article's body.

That all being said, as an article's lead follows its body, we should focus on fixing the problems in the article's body first, and then once we have that process completed we can look at whatever is wrong with the lead. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree with that. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Me too. Generalrelative (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I've implemented what I understand to be the emerging consensus here. If I've gotten anything wrong, let's discuss. And if additional secondary sources are forthcoming I'd be happy to see more discussion of Bailey's research re-added. Generalrelative (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Confusing edit

Zenomonoz, we may need to discuss this edit, where you removed the sentence:

Critics argued that the paper disregarded countervailing evidence and was based upon an unrepresentative sample of participants.

This statement is well sourced, as discussed above. See in particular where this source states:

Soon after publication, the paper attracted criticism that its method of gathering study participants was biased, and that the authors ignored information that didn't support the theory of ROGD.

In your edit summary, you said This part is irrelevant to the retraction. it's giving the false impression that the paper was retracted due to being offensive. Also, the 'representativeness' of the paper is very much irrelevant here as many papers on transgender people are obviously not representative due to the small population. If it were irrelevant, why would both of the cited sources mention it? Further, nothing here said anything about the study being "offensive". The critique was methodological. And there are certainly enough transgender people for a representative study to be conducted. This one was critiqued for failing to be representative (and for disregarding countervailing evidence). Again, a methodological critique. Happy to discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Look, Mike Bailey would like people to believe the paper was retracted because of activist disagreement and offence with his paper and it's methodology. The section is titled 'retraction', hence I feel it is best to simply state it was retracted because of the consent issues. If you would like to reinclude the 'critiques' of the papers methodology, then you should probably rename the subsection title 'Rapid onset gender dysphoria' because it's now branching out beyond retraction. No paper is retracted because of the representativeness of the sample, that would usually be criticised in commentaries. The paper was retracted for consent issues and hence it's best to keep it brief. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't follow your argument. Critiquing a paper's methodology has nothing to do with taking offense. Calling one's critics "activists" is just name-calling. You yourself have argued above that Bailey's intentions should be immaterial, and I agree. The paper needs to be described is accordance with the way reliable secondary sources have done, with the various aspects of that coverage given due weight. Removing the sentence about methodological critique violates that core principle. I therefore ask you to self-revert. Generalrelative (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that if reliable secondary sources have described it a certain way, then that is fair to include. If the content is about the paper that was retracted, then it seems not unreasonable to include that in the section as well. Hist9600 (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

By that standard, it would be appropriate to then include what the paper found and covered. See the issue? My point was to keep it brief because you all fought me on notability to begin with, and the BLP noticeboard agreed that a short couple of sentences was appropriate. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

In general, a lot of these things come down to core principles like due weight, notability, the presence of reliable secondary sources, and to some degree consensus. In my view, adding a sentence that provides this context does not really pose a problem. Hist9600 (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fair to mention the criticism. I still don't think this one paper needs to be in a dedicated subsection, but if it does, we could maybe call it "Retracted paper" to address Zenomonoz's concern about it being about more than just the retraction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Bailey, et al (2016)

There are a number of issues with these types of sources, and I'm concerned about BLP's becoming collections of what are effectively primary sources, or sources that are not sufficiently independent from the article subject. We have seen before that BLP's for psychologists, psychiatrists, sexologists, etc., may become littered with primary medical sources, and it takes a lot of work to clean this up after the fact. I'm not against the use of sources like this, but I think they should be accompanied by an independent secondary reliable source that establishes the relevance to the Wikipedia article subject.

While a review study may be a secondary source with regard to the study of a certain subject (e.g. sexual orientation), is it a primary or secondary source with regard to the person's career? The review study is not about Bailey himself. It was about sexual orientation, and Bailey was one of the authors. If the subject of this Wikipedia article was sexual orientation, then I think this may be an independent secondary reliable source on the subject of sexual orientation. But since the source is primarily about sexual orientation, and the subject of this Wikipedia article is one of the authors of the review study, I don't see how this could be considered a secondary reliable source on the matter of Bailey's career.

I think it would make more sense to base the section on Bailey's career on what independent secondary and tertiary reliable sources say about the work that he has done that is significant, and this is a better way to determine what is WP:DUE. For example, a news article that mentions noteworthy studies done by Bailey, and ties them to Bailey and his career, might be an independent secondary reliable source about Bailey's career. Per WP:PST, whether a source is WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY is specific to exactly how the source is being used. Hist9600 (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Replied on this in the section below. Continue conversation there for chronological order so other users can chime in. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of content

I reverted this removal of content by Hist9600. Independence is a rule ensuring content remain verifiable. Bailey and other researchers are analysing the results of others work in a meta analysis. However, even per WP:NIS: Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. For example, "Organization X said 10,000 people showed up to protest" is OK when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest" is not. This is for the content of the article (not the notability of the article itself) and the paragraph clearly attributes this to Bailey. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Also if we really need to rely on independent sources, there are others. However I do think WP:NIS indicates non independent sources are fine here, but I will seek noticeboard or admin comment later to confirm. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Also this essay Wikipedia:Based upon argues that a majority of sources should be independent, because articles are ‘based upon’ independent sources: “If 70% of the sentences in an article about Alice Expertcome from Alice's own writing, or Alice's employer's website, then the article is based upon non-independent sources. On the other hand, if 70% of the content in that article comes from magazine articles written by journalists, then the article is based upon independent sources” Zenomonoz (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above (not sure why we need two sections to discuss one issue?), whether a source is primary, secondary, or tertiary depends on exactly how the source is being used. Per WP:SECONDARY: Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. Note that in this example, they are talking about a source being alternately either a secondary source, or a primary source, depending on the context. But some relevance to the author also needs to be established in the first place. The source is not about Bailey himself. He is merely one of its authors. It would be useful as a secondary medical source about the subject it is about (i.e. sexual orientation), but it would not qualify as a secondary reliable source about the careers of its authors. Hist9600 (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a section on Bailey’s career and research. Deriving inferences from these follow ups is a part of his research career. Saying that “this isn’t about Bailey” is like saying we can’t include the research or hypotheses of any researcher on their Wikipedia page, even from a secondary source, because it “isn’t specifically about” the scientist. Most articles on academics focus on their views and research. The near perfect quasi experiment is an idea that was coined by Bailey, and he is the researcher who has placed most emphasis on it. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

There are in fact many sources about Bailey already in this Wikipedia article that do qualify as independent secondary and tertiary reliable sources. They discuss Bailey himself, his career, his work, relevance to society, etc. But an academic article authored by Bailey himself, without anything else to establish any importance in his career, is (1) not a secondary source about Bailey and his work, (2) not independent in any way, and (3) relying on Wikipedia editors to analyze and interpret the source, and decide whether they think it is relevant and significant. Wikipedia editors shouldn't be in the business of getting into that level of interpretation themselves for a BLP (and there is no need to do that). Hist9600 (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed previous comment, sorry didn't see the secondary source. Regardless, WP:NIS and Wikipedia:Based upon leave room for some parts of articles to be included even when authored by non-independent sources. If you are going to insist, yes I can add an independent one, but I don't think there is grounds to remove it as it stands. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to at least include a secondary source to establish the other. For example, a book on reptiles may be a secondary source on reptiles, but it is not a secondary source on the author of the book. If the book described the author's life as a first-hand account, then it would be a primary source on those aspects of the author's life. But if neither was applicable, then it would presumably not be a source on the author at all. Hist9600 (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I have gone an added an independent and secondary source. If other users would still like to weigh in on the use of Bailey's work as a source, feel free. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. It is not clear to me why anyone is talking about secondary sources in this discussion.

As for whether it should be mentioned at all, I can tell you that the paper was cited more than 80 times, which sounds like a lot to me, and that highly experienced editors like David Eppstein have been trying to convince me for years that the point of a WP:NPROF article is to summarize the academic's research, even if this can only be done by citing their own papers or their own CV or their own employers' websites. Presumably mentioning highly cited papers would be a reasonable approach in such a model. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Assessing the quality of sources is a normal part of editing for a WP:BLP, and this is encouraged. Whether a source is independent is important, but also whether the source is a primary source or secondary source is also very relevant. And for that matter: Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. But this source is not what the author has published about himself. It is what the author has published about another topic (i.e. sexual orientation). Hist9600 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"this source is not what the author has published about himself. It is what the author has published about another topic (i.e. sexual orientation)" – I don't follow? Your edits to Kenneth Zucker includes quotes from from his publications on "another topic" (i.e. gender dysphoria), not himself. That's how articles about academics work. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Please review WP:PST for more information, as I've already gone into this in detail. For example: Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Whether a quote is used from someone or not is immaterial, and for a WP:BLP, the type of source is important and should be reviewed. If there are no independent secondary or tertiary reliable sources that say something, then it's questionable whether it should be included in an encyclopedia article.

You have made claims about the Kenneth Zucker article before (which are not relevant to this article). But as far as I'm aware, any primary source is accompanied by an independent secondary reliable source, following the established guidelines in WP:PST. If you find issues, you can bring them up on the talk page for that article. But this talk page is for discussing the article about Bailey, so let's please stay on topic. Hist9600 (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Your highlighted quote is about original analysis by Wikipedia editors, not independence of the source author (which you appear to be getting at). The thing is, the content is now supplemented by an independent and tertiary source (Apostolou), so your issue is resolved. Two other editors have just argued the content is adequately sourced. I agree Zucker is another issue, but my point about Zucker has nothing to do with independence or nature of the source. It was a response to your other argument that "this source is not what the author has published about himself. It is what the author has published about another topic (i.e. sexual orientation)" – which would lead you to the conclusion that no wikipedia page can include any researchers opinions/view on any topic because it is "about another topic" rather than the author. We don't remove the oedipus complex from Sigmund Freud's article because it is "what the author has published about another topic". Zenomonoz (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, please review WP:PST so you can distinguish between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Whether a source is a primary source or secondary source, or an appropriate source at all, depends entirely on how it is used. We don't remove the oedipus complex from Sigmund Freud's article... And why would it need to be removed, since there are obviously high quality secondary and tertiary reliable sources that can establish its relevance to Freud? That is what this is about. It's about sourcing for a WP:BLP. Hist9600 (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know that already. Again, I cited Apostolou as an independent source yet you seem to still have an issue. To clarify, your statement: "this source is not what the author has published about himself. It is what the author has published about another topic (i.e. sexual orientation)"" is imprecise, and from your response, you clearly do believe that pages can include things authors write about another topic (not themselves), provided they are covered by others in independent secondary or tertiary sources. If you had more clearly written that it would've been much easier to understand. Can you see how the sentence is quite confusing without proper clarification? And regardless, Wikipedia:Based upon and WP:NIS would suggest that not every piece of content needs to be completely independent. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a perfect approach to selecting the most important works, but in the absence of independent secondary sources telling us what those works are, or domain-specific knowledge, it works reasonably well. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

If the approach is to make up for a lack of high quality sourcing by using original research / interpretation / synthesis based around primary sources, then I have a hard time seeing which Wikipedia policies establish that usage for a WP:BLP. Hist9600 (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, @Hist9600, when you and @Zenomonoz have more experience, especially more experience outside the LGBT subject area, then you will likely have a clearer understanding of how Wikipedia actually works. @David Eppstein and I are just telling you how things actually work. Whether you can see reality reflected in some WP:UPPERCASE is something that interests me, but not necessarily what we need to discuss on this page.

I wonder if you have enough experience to make the old-fashioned approach of doing what's right for the article work. For example: It appears that Bailey agrees with the mainstream scientific POV that social pressure won't turn a gay man into a straight man. Is it right for the article to include or exclude that fact? I realize this is a risky suggestion, because some people find it far easier to seize onto a caricature when we instead need to Wikipedia:Imagine others complexly (editors and subjects alike) and realize that a person who holds a distasteful POV in one area might not also vote for the wrong party, drive a pollution-belching monster truck, and like disco music, too. But try it: What do you think would be fair to the article, and how close can you come to that without adding WP:Glossary#unverifiable (←please click that link) content? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I would like you to substantiate your approach to BLP's using actual Wikipedia policies rather than ad hominems against other editors. The use of primary sources in a WP:BLP is worth discussing and reviewing. It sounds like much of the justification is, "I use original research and primary sources by themselves in BLP's because others don't stop me, and high-quality reliable sources don't exist." Hist9600 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we have a shared understanding of what an ad hominem attack is? Hint: I've not said that you (to use the words in that article) "hold a property that is unwelcome". I've also not said that you're wrong to pound on the written policies. I've only said that editors might find a different approach to be more productive. If you feel the need for an UPPERCASE justification, then my suggestion aligns with WP:NOTSTATUTE and WP:UCS, but whether it's supported by policy or not, none of what I said is an attack on anybody. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Focusing on other editors rather than content, and dismissing them as inexperienced, rather than discussing the content of the article, is not a productive way of using the article talk page. Hist9600 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing you. I am saying that it is at least possible that other editors know something about how Wikipedia works that you have not yet encountered, and that if you knew more about how Wikipedia handles PROF articles, that might affect what you think will be considered acceptable in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)