Jump to content

Talk:J. Michael Bailey/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

POV Issues

The Man Who Would Be Queen section seems to focus more on debunking and downplaying criticism than presenting it objectively. Two paragraphs had been dedicated to Alice Dreger's defense of the book, including a full sentence to describe her qualifications. On the other hand, critics are referred to as "transsexual professors." Instead of directly saying what the criticism is, the article offers "what might have motivated some to object to the book." I suggest adding relevant criticism from Julia Serano's Whipping Girl as it is a well cited academic text that is far more direct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.237.228 (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Negative POV?

This article view Dr. Bailey in a very unfavorible light. "Following the publication of Bailey's book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism, Northwestern University received many complaints from transsexual women Bailey interviewed, who complained that they didn’t know he was using them as research subjects and that distorted versions of their case histories would appear in his book." Bailey asserts that: a) the two women in question did know about the book ahead of time, and didn't complain untill after it was actually published dispite having seen it prior to publishing, b) the research for the book did not constitute formal research (which was one of the main accusations leveled at him) In addition, this wikipedia article also leaves out the fact that he was exonerated of all charges in the inquiry by the Northwestern Research Review Board. Cite: Bailey's own remarks in the Northwestern Daily (campus newspaper) In addition, he mentions all the verious drawbacks to his work on bisexual men, and only uses it as a basis to suggest additional testing. Now I am unaware of the truth of the matter either way, however I am very certain that this article does not portray him in an evan handed manner persuient to the wikipedia standards, and I call the articles bias into question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.217.163 (talk • contribs)

Bailey was not "exonerated of all charges." You can cite Bailey's version of the facts if you have a citation, but here's the citation quoting Northwestern University officials in the top academic trade magazine:
"...the university will not reveal its findings or say whether it punished Mr. Bailey."
Wilson, Robin (12/10/2004). Northwestern U. Will Not Reveal Results of Investigation Into Sex Researcher. Chronicle of Higher Education.
More importantly, Northwestern University refused to investigate more serious allegations, including sex with a research subject/therapy client, and the fabrication of the child Bailey "cured" in his book with with reparative therapy. Bailey's successful case report and John Money's fabricated success in the David Reimer case have remarkable parallels.
The "formal research" charge was the only one Northwestern chose to investigate, because it was likely the only one for which they were legally liable. It was in fact one of the less egregious of the charges leveled against Bailey. Jokestress 20:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of someone's opinion of Bailey or what he was accused of (especially when it was never even investigated), it is clear that this article has a strongly negative POV and I am marking it as such. Foxxygirltamara 22:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I just moved the text about his 2003 book to its own article and will spend the next couple of days adopting summary style for that section. If there are sections that feel POV, please cite specific examples so they can be addressed. Jokestress 17:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"By the end of the book, Bailey has personally "cured" Danny of his "disorder" by forcing Danny to conform to gender roles. " This is not at all the approach Bailey takes in "The Man Who Would Be Queen." At the end of the book, Bailey sees Danny again after several years, and feels confident that Danny will grow up to be a gay man. Bailey never attempts to change Danny's nature in the book, and his other research suggests that he certainly does not have anything agaist the gay population. This article is clearly not impartial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.95.213 (talk • contribs)

The word "personally" is not quite accurate, since he claims Danny refused to meet with him. However, he makes it clear that Danny's mother follows his advice after seeking a third expert opinion.
Bailey writes of Danny's mother, "In spring of 1996 Leslie Ryan came to my Northwestern University office to seek yet another opinion." [1] He then extolls the virtues of Ken Zucker's reparative therapy for children with gender identity "disorder". [2] That means taking away anything "feminine" from the child. [3] Bailey warns that a world tolerant of gender-nonconforming boys might "come with the cost of more transsexual adults." [4]. Leslie reports back that the cure is working and that Danny won't talk about feminine things, and his Dad is forcing him to play catch. [5] When Bailey finally sees Danny, the recommended "cure" has worked. The last paragraph of the book has Danny emphasizing that he needs to go use the men's room.
You can read Kinder, gentler homophobia from The Advocate to learn more about what Bailey has against the gay population. Jokestress 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I read the article and didn't get the impression that Bailey has anything in particular "against the gay population". I did note the noticeably nasty tone the interviewer took toward the end on the interview. Uncalled for and totally unprofessional if you ask me.
On the issue of POV in this article – just because many LGBT activists hate Bailey's guts is no reason to slant this article as an anti-Bailey article. (If you don't understand this, I suggest you go back and read WP:NPOV.) Discuss the controversy, by all means, but discuss both sides of it. Peter G Werner 00:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Please take in to consideration that the article which might seem too have a negative POV may simply have subject matter which is not very nice.
It is quite possible that Professor Bailey is in his personal life a good and well-meaning person, but that is not the thrust of the piece. It is his record as a researcher in his chosen field which is, to be charitable, "somewhat flawed".
For such a minor figure, this is a heavily footnoted and well documented article. So unless there is some sort of other "evidence" hidden away somewhere, not revealed by "Google" et. al. I am not sure what is expected here. Sometimes there is just not much you can do to "improve" the image of something. The old saw about being unable to "make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" come to mind in his case. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 19:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Gay, Straight, or Lying" sentence

I've removed this sentence because it simply isn't accurate: "That piece, title "Gay Straight or Lying: Bisexuality Revisited" took an oft-repeated phrase Bailey uses to claim that male bisexuals are "lying."" Please read note 3 in this press release by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. They're critical of the study, yet they acknowledge that the word "lying" is not based on any of Bailey's statments or anything in the study, but is simply "spin" added by the New York Times. If discussion of the New York Times piece is reinsterted back into the article, it should be rewritten to reflect this fact. Peter G Werner 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

From FAIR: "In fact, the Times' headline could have been taken from the press release for Bailey's book, which was headlined, 'Gay, Straight, or Lying? Science Has the Answer.'" [6] Here's the publicity for Bailey's book , to which they refer. [7] Here is it on the publisher's site today. [8] Here's where it appears in the book itself. [9] [10] Jokestress 00:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Was the study performed in 2005 or 2002? [11] claims the latter, saying "Mr. Bailey's accusations are actually based on an old 2002 conference paper (see below), extended by adding a few more subjects and then recently warming it over and spiffing it up for re-publication in a second-tier psychology journal." Mdwh 15:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The methodology was first described in a poster in 2002, but the published paper that got all the press was in 2005. To be clear, these researchers claim in effect that all women are bisexual and no men are. Jokestress 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI--Psychological Science is one of the premier journals in psychology. It is the Science/Nature of psychology. Nobody would consider it a "second-tier" publication. --Felzenmat 04:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed this text again. There is no citation that proves that Bailey used the phrase to claim that gay and bisexual people are lying. Its merely a thought provoking title that poses a question. The accusation that Bailey claims gay and bisexual people are lying is critical and controversial and unsourced. As such, it needs to be removed until it can be cited properly. Avruch 16:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

For reference to the "lying" aspect, you have a source on wikipedia. It either needs to be removed from that page as non-citationed or added here again. That is an issue for later (maybe after I get a nap and blood sugar above the current 57). [12] -- GeekyDee 08:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

=NPOV tag

I have removed the NPOV tag from this article. If someone wishes to add it back, please specify areas of the article which you believe do not appear to conform to policy. Jokestress 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

why change description of mentor Dr. Lee Willerman?

On December 16th an anonymous editor changed the description of Dr. Bailey's mentor at the University of Texas, Austin, Dr. Lee Willerman from "hereditarian and eugenics researcher" to "behavior genetics researcher". Since Dr. Willerman was from 1974 on a member of the American Eugenics Society and his academic work is described as "eugenics-themed hypotheses", I wondered why the change. In the absence of any new/changed information on Dr. Willerman, should it be reverted? CyntWorkStuff 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Results of an Automated Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer 15:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Just some suggestions for futures editors to think about. --Hfarmer 15:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV on Research Misconduct

Note: tagged before I read this talk page, just based on reading the article. The use of "Shockingly" and "This represents only one of the inherent flaws in the logical formulation of his theories, as well as his own personal hypocrisy and ethical violations ..." are clearly not NPOV.CarlFink 16:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I stripped this section back to the bare facts given in the Chronicle article. Everything else seemed POV or redundant.66.183.165.57 12:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

oops, this was meant to go into a new section ... May I humbly suggest that the expression "the vast majority of", say, scientists, is right up there with the expression "virtually proven" for being anti-scientific - in fact, it's right up there with those who hold things in faith.

A philosopher of religion you ain't!
A few weasel words here, no? Peacocking too... That's a fact, Jack. ask123 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks ok now... ask123 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

NY Times article

This article mentions wikipedia. Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege --70.168.11.81 02:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

The introduction to the section, Research and Publications, is clearly biased. I, therefore, tagged it as without NPOV. It quite obviously highlights the most controversial aspects of Bailey's research without really explaining, in a detailed manner, the research he actually conducted. Once his research is described adequately (just the facts, m'am) the tag may be removed. Of course, this is not to say that the controversial elements of his research should not be included here -- they absolutely should. But they must be in a larger, more balanced framework. ask123 15:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of 'Net Forum as Citation And Other Source Issues

What is the standard policy on WP regarding using an internet forum as a citable source? Specifically regarding source number 19. Also, it seems a number of the citations lead to websites of interest groups (i.e. planetout, outintoronto, etc.) In a controversial situation where they can be expected to have a biased view (as they don't present themselves as unbiased sources) are these acceptable sources to cite? They may be, I don't know all the policies on point. I've added a number of citation needed tags throughout the article to sections and particular phrases where a contention is made that is unsupported by a citation. Avruch 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, an internet forum is generally considered unacceptable for contentious facts about living people. The relevant policy (which should have been linked at the top of this discussion page) is WP:Biographies of living persons. This article has been listed on a noticeboard which is patrolled by Wikipedians who will attempt to review all citations provided. Hornplease 10:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Man Who Would Be Queen section...

... needs to be merged into The Man Who Would Be Queen and summarized here, as per WP:CFORK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC) I removed the sections that went into detailed summary of the book itself. I think the main article on this book covers all of that in a similar fasion, so I didn't move anything. I left the sections dealing mainly with the controversy, because I think it is largely this controversy and follow on controversies that make Bailey notable. Would you agree that this material should remain, or at least be modified but not deleted? Avruch 18:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

35% not getting a hard on

Seems about right from the porn industry point of view... (This is a discussion page right?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.75.77 (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny statistics...

Quoting from the article: Bailey is well-known for research involving biology and sexual orientation. In the early 1990s he coauthored with Richard Pillard a series of twin studies which examined the rate of concordance of sexual identity among monozygotic twins (52% concordance), dizygotic twins of the same sex (22%), non-twin siblings of the same sex, and adoptive siblings of the same sex (11%).[2][3] Is it just me, or there's something wrong there... ? There's a 11% concordance of sexual orientation... ? That means that 90% of the time, if you'd take two boys for instance, there'd be one homosexual and one heterosexual ? I mean... either I don't understand what is meant to be understood, or there's something truly wrong with those numbers. Seigneur101 (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the abstract for the first study, it appears that they recruited volunteers who self-identified as gay, and evaluated their families.[13] Within this group, those are the numbers. So they found 56 gay men with evaluable identical twins, and 29 (52%) of those twins were also gay, while the remaining 27 were not gay. It's not 'if you randomly pick any two boys, 90% of the pairs will match': it's 'given that we're starting with a gay man, about 10% of his adoptive siblings will be gay, and about 90% will not.' WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of February 3, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Mostly well written, but there are a few issues. The introductory section needs to be expanded to be a "concise overview" of the article. At only two sentences, it currently leaves out a summarization of things such as his published work. Please review WP:LEAD for more info. Next, the "Early life and education" and "Career" sections basically cover one area, and dividing them is unnecessary. "Research" is also part of his Career, so it should perhaps be a subheading.
2. Factually accurate?: Mostly makes good use of in-line citations to reliable references, but there are a few areas needing work. Currently, there are no in-line citations covering the "Early life and education" section, and I'm sure some of the news references used now cover this material. Also, the first paragraph of "Sexual arousal patterns of bisexual men" (especially the direct quotations) need to be cited.
3. Broad in coverage?: Broad in coverage, but the article repeats some things over again, which could be viewed as NPOV violation. In particular, the section on "The Man Who Would Be Queen" repeats the exact same quotes by Alice Dreger several times, using the same source. Considering that Dreger is just one person, three quotations of the same statement are unnecessary.
4. Neutral point of view?: As I say just above, there are parts of the controversy surrounding Bailey that are repeated several times. This is, probably unintentionally, a case of undue weight on one significant point of view. The sentence "According to Dreger, the allegations of misconduct could more accurately be described as forms of harassment and intimidation by Bailey's critics in an effort to destroy him personally and professionally." also feels like excessive weight on Dreger's opinion in defense of Bailey. The article also, unless I missed something, neglects the fact that, according to the New York Times in its most recent piece on Bailey, many individual transgender women "...found the tone of the book abusive, and the theory of motivation it presented to be a recipe for further discrimination." The personal point of view of everyday gay and transgender people, as cited in the NYT and other publications as already noted in the article, need to be given equal weight with the opinion of Dreger. Overall, the article leans too heavily on criticism or support for Bailey among academics. Considering that he is "a reviled figure for some in the gay and transgender communities."(NYT), I don't think overlooking this is okay.
5. Article stability? No edit wars, etc.
6. Images?: Images are not required to meet GA. Obtaining free images of Bailey obviously isn't easy, and fair use no longer applies to living people.


Thank you very much for your patience with the currently backlogged GA nominations process. With currently 200 or so unreviewed candidates, the project is in dire need to more reviewers. Anyone can review a GA candidate, so please consider taking on a review that interests you. If you need any assistance, please don't hesitate to ask me. In the meantime, I await your work on the requested improvements.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. VanTucky 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Working on responding.

  • 1.  Not done (Well, partially done. I still need to expand the lead.)
  • 2.  Done
  • 3.  Done Moved some information to the main article and cleaned up a bit what was left.
  • 4.  Not done I'm not sure what the resolution here is - I don't want to grant undue weight to the criticism by representing all the avenues of it. The criticism is about his academic work, so it would seem that including the criticism and response in the academic community is the best way to go here. Avruchtalk 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the fourth issue (NPOV), I don't think a whole lot of additions (i.e. not a subsection or paragraph even) is necessary. I agree that staying with primarily academic is a good way to go, it's just inappropriate for the article to not acknowledge at all the opinion of the wider gay/trans community. I just meant removing the repetition of Dreger's quote and adding one mention (cited by the NYT) of how Bailey is a reviled figure for some in the community. One sentence should do it, two at most. VanTucky 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright -

  • 1.  Done
  • 2.  Done
  • 3.  Done
  • 4.  Done

I'm a little concerned about the NPOVness of the introduction, although I think it is an accurate characterization of what it is that makes him most notable. Thoughts? Avruchtalk 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is better. I wasn't sure about using an acronym in the intro (or at all, really) which is why I didn't just say LGBT. I'll acknowledge for this page that I've received some concerns from an interested party by e-mail, but it will take me some time to review the substance there and I'd like the evaluation of the article based on GA criteria to continue using the current version. Thanks, Avruchtalk 00:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, I hope we can address the things the person who has emailed us has brought up. But none of them give me serious pause when assessing the current state of the article compared to the GA criteria. It definitely meets it. Congrats, and thanks for your patience! VanTucky 00:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Delisted Good Article

Its with regret that I've removed the listing of this article as a "Good Article." I think it has become evident, based on the recent history of this article and its current state, that this article is not at a point where it can be considered among the "Good Articles" of Wikipedia. I think that there are clear issues of stability, of compliance with core policies (particularly NPOV) and of rigor in referencing. Avruch 01:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV lead without violating BLP.

I have no problem at all with a lead that summarizes all the relevant info. Personally, I think the whole story is a bit too complex to fit into a lead. However, if you can come up with text that describes the accusations and the results, then I have no objection. But, putting in the summary only a one-sided summary that makes it sound like he was guilty and that his university is engaged in a cover-up, then you are violating WP:BLP. I think it would be useful to suggest some text here on the talk page before reverting again.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would go further and expunge all mention of accusations which were found to be false or have an unknown outcome. I would argue that except in very high profile cases (e.g. Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson etc.) including such allegations is incompatible with NPOV. CIreland (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly hadn't thought of that. You're right though; posting mere allegations does seem a violation of BLP, at least in spirit. A great many people have very strong feelings about this, however, and I can't imagine how (realistically) such a consensus could emerge for it. The suggestion also strikes me as an issue for WP rather than one just for this page, no?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a complex issue. Sometimes a false accusation can have such a large impact on a person's personal or professional life that it would seem odd not to mention it in their biographical article. However, the degree of impact can be difficult, if not impossible, to determine in all but the most obvious cases. What I find myself asking when I read the article is, Is there a consensus in the relevant scientific community that this man's work is discredited? and the article does not answer my question, it simply provides allegations and accusations. And so I then find myself wondering, Is this article asking me to infer that this man's work is discredited? and that makes me uneasy. CIreland (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Very insightful. For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that there are indeed people who want very much for readers to infer that Bailey's work is discredited. In fact, I am right now in the middle of a content dispute leaking onto several related pages (including Bailey's) where casting doubt appears exactly to be the goal: If something is negative about Bailey it must be correct; and if something is positive, then it must be part of the cabal of his cronies. I have only recently started in the wiki world, but the Bailey and related pages seem all to have been created at the height of the controversy they created around his book. Personally, I can't help but wonder if this crew co-opted wikipedia to serve as a platform for their negative campaigning. But, that's still only my opinion, and I have to recognize their rights here as much as my own. (Although I haven't had the feeling that they would accord the same to me, but that's another matter.) As for the scientific community; some agree with Bailey, some disagree (the same as before his book). Download the Dreger paper; it's like reading a spy novel.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of this article needs to be re-written

The article reads, 'He is best known among scientists for his work on the possible biological basis of sexual orientation, which suggests that homosexuality is substantially inherited.' There are two problems with this. One, it is not supported by a citation. Two, it is worded wrongly; scientific work cannot by itself 'suggest' anything about anything, only the scientists who interpret it can. If Bailey himself has said that his work suggests that homosexuality is substantially inherited, then a quote to this effect should be added. Skoojal (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is a direct quotation required? Isn't a properly sourced statement good enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The direct quotation is needed to show readers who may not have access to the source that this is what Bailey said. The quotation could be placed in the references; it doesn't have to go in the overview. Skoojal (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think a direct quote is necessary, but the relevant refs can certainly be relocated from the bibliography.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
There remains the matter of the wording. Only scientists can suggest what scientific work shows; the work itself 'suggests' nothing because scientific findings cannot speak. Skoojal (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
How now?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
In the spirit of massively oversourcing undisputed facts, we could also name papers like PMID 9549243, titled "Human sexual orientation has a heritable component" and PMID 7761309, titled "A biologic perspective on sexual orientation". If you want an off-the-wall reference, he had his work in this area picked apart by a conservative religious magazine for daring to suggest that sexual orientation is not entirely a personal "choice". I would be astonished to find anyone seriously dispute his long-standing view that sexual orientation has a significant biological component. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Meh. Seeing just how terribly under-sourced most of the sexuality pages are, I can easily forgive some over-sourcing.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording is now fine. Thank you. Skoojal (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wording: critics versus detractors

There should be little doubt that 'critics' is a much more neutral term than 'detractors.' There do not appear to be any good grounds for using the latter term instead of the former. Skoojal (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a word that is entirely acceptable to everyone in a complicated dispute. My understanding was that "critics say..." is a weasel word. "Detractors" and "supporters" just identify who is on what side, and I don't think there is much debate about who is indeed on what side.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

'Detractors' is a sneer word, so please don't use it. Your remarks above are not to the point and do not justify the use of a sneer word. Skoojal (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to input from others.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a difficult issue to decide. Identifying the two sides as 'critics' and 'supporters' should be fine. Calling Bailey's critics 'detractors' makes their criticisms of him sound too personal. And note that I'm not saying that their criticisms are not personal, necessarily, just that the article shouldn't use language that emphasises this side of things. Skoojal (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Either can be a weasel word if the critics or detractors are not identified, either explicitly or in the references. But assuming that is dealt with, critics is certainly the less loaded term. I had changed to say some of his transwoman subjects and others, the "others" still having a potential weasel word problem, hopefully cleared up in the refs, and "transwoman subjects" serving to point out more particularly, but without names, who was doing the complaining. Dicklyon (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

TheLibrarian's rampage

(section copied from User talk:Dicklyon#TheLibrarian's rampage now that I'm off 3RR block):

Now that I'm out of the picture for a bit, it (MarionTheLibrarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has accelerated to full speed. See for example this diff in the Bailey bio. By replacing the allegation of research misconduct with the other allegation of having sex with a subject, TheLibrarian figures it has a good reason to say that "Northwestern’s Provost found no basis for pursuing the complaint." What the cited source actually says is:

A NU committee looking into the allegations against Bailey told Kieltyka, in a Nov. 12 letter, that it was proceeding with a "full investigation of the allegation that professor Bailey did not obtain the informed consent of research subjects." / "I concur, and have directed that an investigation committee be established," NU vice president for research C. Bradley Moore stated. / But the committee decided not to pursue the allegations involving sex, a decision Conway criticized.

TheLibrarian continues with the phrase saying that it "did not merit further investigation.", sourced to the famous Dreger attack piece in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. If you look at what she actually said there, you find that she attributes that line to Lynn Conway's site, and if you check there, you find that it is the recollection of a person who saw another unspecified person's letter from the above mentioned C. Bradley Moore. So much for the Librarian respecting WP:BLP and WP:RS!

And that was just the first in a string of edits. They all follow the same pattern that it started (as WriteMakesRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 99.231.67.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 99.227.88.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and probably also 68.55.67.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in December 2007) which is to clean up the image of members of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (aka the infamous Clarke Institute of Psychiatry and its Kurt Freund Phallometric Lab) and editors of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, while dumping on their transwoman critics such as Andrea James, Lynn Conway, and Deirdre McCloskey.

It would be great if someone more clever than myself would find a way to restrain it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV/COI complaint to User:MarionTheLibrarian

Edits like this one are way over the top. Asserting unsupported factoids to bolster Dreger's "attack on the critics of Bailey" as it is called in one of the commentaries, is not acceptable. I'll follow the suggestion above to take you to WP:NPOVN tomorrow, when I'm unblocked, for this latest string of edits that essentially impugn all the critics of Bailey, which you feel is somehow more fair than mentioning things about Bailey himself. Dicklyon (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And then in this edit you make up a name for the cited page, trying to give the impression that it supports what you cited it for. Sheesh! Dicklyon (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So I edited the relevant to a reasonable state, and TheLibrarian put all the Queen stuff back again. I await some explanation how these edits can be considered reasonable, when they are not verifiable in reliable sources. In the mean time, I can't leave such blatant misrepresentations of sources in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Every one of my edits is correctly sourced, putting a one-to-one correspondance between allegation and outcome. Moving past Dicklyon's incivil labelling of Dreger's publication as an attack piece, information from articles published in peer-reviewed journals meet WP:V, even if Dicklyon believes that the journal contains a conspiracy against Conway (a long-time friend of Dicklyon's who comes out looking bad in Dreger's article). Rather than revert Dicklyon's changes, any input would be appreciated from folks who have opinions on which description of the allegations against Bailey and of Dreger's article better meets NPOV. (Incidentally, the title to this section also strikes me as rather incivil.)
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Correctly sourced? I've most recently repeated the problems specifically for you at this diff. I don't understand why you're not commenting on specifics, or just accepting the fix. Calling my complaints incivil isn't going to get us anywhere. Dicklyon (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interests

Folks - it appears as though some of you involved in this dispute on Wikipedia are also involved in this dispute in your professional lives. Generally speaking Wikipedia discourages you from editing articles in which you have a strong conflict of interest - i.e. your interest in bringing the article into a neutral, referenced state conflicts with your interest in reflecting your view of the subject. Clearly Jokestress is involved. You should consider whether its appropriate for you to continue to edit this article, based on your involvement in this conflict outside of Wikipedia, and if you are likely to be identified as a part of this dispute you should add yourself to the talkpage using the {{Notable Wikipedian}} template. Avruch 21:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am acquainted with one of the menioned "Bailey's critics" who is not currently named in the article (Lynn Conway; after my latest edit, she is now named in the article as one filing complaints). I will add the template as you suggest if people think it is appropriate, and if Jokestress and MarionTheLibrarian will add theirs. Dicklyon (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I am a professional sex researcher, and regularly meet with other sex researchers, including Bailey, mostly at conferences. The wiki-culture about what counts as a COI, however, appears to be different from what is written in WP:COI. For example, user:Jokestress, named above, has written disparaging letters, about Ken Zucker (a colleague) to his own employer, but still sees fit to make large edits on the Kenneth Zucker page and to add large amounts of information about him to the conversion therapy page. I'd welcome input regarding what is typically deemed appropriate.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It is typically not appropriate for closely involved people such as Jokestress and yourself to work on such articles unless their conflicts are declared and they make an obvious effort to keep very neutral. However, as you've noticed, an appeal to the WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN noticeboard seldom gets much useful response; especially when the party complaining is not themselves lily-white in this respect (a situation you were able to leverage to advantage). That said, I don't find Jokestress's edits to be more than a little biased (not that she isn't quite anti-Zucker in real life, as we all know), and she has shown great restraint in not edit warring with editors from the other side on related articles. I think that if other editors find notable stuff about Zucker to add, that will improve and balance the article better, and she won't present much COI problem. But thank you for finally admitting your own COI as a colleague of Zucker, here and at Talk:Kenneth Zucker. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
She certainly has done worse, but to create a page and to include on it little other than a three-week controversy that one had a large part in fanning the flames of? Jokestress wants Zucker to be associated with 'conversion therapy' because she thinks that that stigma in the GLBT communities will be useful to her long-standing efforts to discredit Zucker. So, she's trying to change the definition of conversion therapy, selectively quoting sources so they look like they're saying something else, and imbalancing content in order to accomplish that.
And, you're welcome, I guess; but, I've done more than acknowledge that Zucker is a colleague of mine.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, James, I had not seen your user page update. Thanks for making it clear that my COI complaints against you were extremely well justified, and now for moving on in the clear. Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
To my eye, that's not quite an accurate recount, but no matter.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Free speech, and reactions in the same issue

I'm not comfortable about parts of this recent edit.

  1. Dick removed In an interview with the New York Times, Dreger said, "If we're going to have research at all, then we’re going to have people saying unpopular things, and if this is what happens to them, then we've got problems not only for science but free expression itself." First of all, deleting this is not explained anywhere (Dick, I invite you to explain your thinking, if it wasn't a simple accident), and second of all, removing it takes away any mention of what is, for non-TG/non-sexology people, the only reason to care about this mess at all. TG people may not care about the free speech implications (that is, defending the perceived interests of the embattled group may trump all other concerns), but if your entire life is built around the notion that people can say whatever they please, without getting fired for it, without being harassed, without newspapers publishing allegations from a prostitute about your sexual activities, no matter what the current version of McCarthyism/political correctness/whatever is, then having to go through that much hell, especially for what's a pretty unimportant book in the grand scheme of things, is a BIG deal. I am not the least surprised that a professional journalist featured that quote: their industry depends on free speech. I am unhappy about excluding the perspective of people who don't have a dog in the "does autogynephilia exist" fight. I would like to see this properly sourced perspective restored.
  2. Insisting on "In the same issue of that journal, twenty-three commentaries on Dreger's account were also published, many of them critical of her analysis" also concerns me. No matter how strictly accurate it may be, many always sounds like most to the casual reader. Does anyone have a rough guess at how many were entirely or importantly critical? No matter what the topic, I'd expect some to be favorable, half either mixed or neutral, and some to be critical. I would also expect more critical reactions than favorable ones, because there's no point in either writing or publishing a letter that basically says "I agree." If this "many" represents, say, a third or less that are entirely negative in essence, then we need to evaluate whether "many of them critical" is misleading. Perhaps "23 commentaries, showing a wide range of reactions" or "23 commentaries, reflecting the diverse opinions of the writers" or even just plain "reactions from 23 writers" (I expect that the sheer number is a record for the publication).

I would be happy to have more information on #2, and to hear your thoughts (especially Dick's) about both of my concerns.

Please note that I'm not just fixing what I perceive as significant problems because I want them to stay fixed -- thus we discuss first, and then edit. I invite any editors who happen to agree with me to exercise the same kind of restraint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

On your item 1, I was probably just so fed up with Dreger-pushing that I knee-jerk reacted to it. But looking again, and reviewing the NYT article, I can see that it is indeed an interesting aspect to cover. I tend to agree with McCloskey, however, who is quoted right after that in the article. Probably if we quote Dreger's POV, we should include the defense of one the persons she is criticizing there, using the quote that follows in the same article. I have no problem with Dreger and Bailey and what they've written; just that some editors want to present Dreger as a neutral authority, when she has clearly taken the side of the sexologists against the transwomen.
On item 2, the actual count, if I can believe Lynn Conway's analysis, is 14 negative reactions to Dreger out of 23; I figured that saying "most" would be WP:OR, but that "many" was easily verifiable by anyone with access to the journal (I can forward a copy to anyone who wants it).
Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
For #2, if we're saying many because we can't find an uncontestable source for most, but we reasonably expect most to be accurate, then I have no problem with the language as it stands.
As for agreeing with McCloskey, who says, "Nothing we have done, I believe, and certainly nothing I have done, overstepped any boundaries of fair comment on a book and an author..." While McCloskey's conscience may be clear, not every critic's is.
Recall, please, that one of the other participants accused wrote "There are two types of children in the Bailey household: Type 1, who have been sodomized by their father, or Type 2, who have not" and labeled his minor daughter's picture with "A cock-starved exhibitionist who's especially well suited to prostitution, or a fetishist who just gets off on the idea of it?" This is an accusation a deliberate character smear involving an extremely reprehensible felony, and IMO "I just meant it to be a parody" is an inadequate protection. Think about the basic community standards of common decency. Think about how reviled she still is for that one-time lapse of judgment. So "Nothing we have done, I believe, and certainly nothing I have done, overstepped any boundaries of fair comment" is unbelievable -- as in, I can't believe that this critic's actions can be considered fair comment on a book or an author, and McCloskey agrees with me on this point. I would not, therefore, include this quotation unless you can limit "Nothing we have done" to indicate that this "nothing" does not really mean "nothing." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, why would you suddenly turn to such outrageous behavior? Besides being false and provocative, it's irrelevant to what we were discussing. I proposed balancing a quote from one person in a NYT article with the quote that follows from the next person, on the other side. That suggestion was not predicated on agreeing with anything that was being said there, or of judging anyone's conscience. Please get back to civil content discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
No one "accused Bailey of incestuous child rape." Please strike that out and be mindful of WP:BLP. Jokestress (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The exact words that Jokestress included with the picture she posted of Bailey's son were "there are two types of children in the Bailey household," namely those "who have been sodomized by their father [and those] who have not." That language of Jokestress' would seem to me to be reasonably summarized by WhatamIdoing as "incestuous child rape."
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying that his BLP attack is justified or forgivable based on your recollection of some web site? Can I "reasonably summarize" some things I recall reading on some web site about you? That would not be pretty, so I won't. Oh, wait, I see you didn't have to recall it, you just looked it up in Dreger's blog, where she claims that "James also claimed in her online publications that..."; or in her ASB pub, where she explained that Bailey told it to her that way. Whatever the true story is, your retelling of it here serves no useful purpose that I can see, except to advance your agenda of slandering those who dare to criticize you and Bailey and your other friends. Dicklyon (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The picture of his son was captioned with a direct quotation from Bailey's book, which of course is only "obscene" when applied to a non-trans person. It's "science" when applied by Bailey to trans people.
The point of the binary taxonomy, which like most satire is lost on the people it lampoons, is that it is a "scientific truth" that there are those two types. What is unscientific is to assume that organizing people in that way is scientific. It makes a very unscientific and odious assumption, just as Bailey's claims about trans children and adults (which are of course "science" to the objects of the satire). Further, it always cracks me up when people assume the former about Bailey when given that either/or. It says volumes about the very people it satirizes and makes the point perfectly. Jokestress (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding how to cite Dreger appropriately, I believe the best line is the one proposed by BrownHornet21,[14] who is mediating Dicklyon's and my related content dispute on the Lynn Conway page.[15] BrownHornet suggested "That review, along with multiple commentaries regarding both sides of the controversy, appears in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior." I accepted the mediator's proposal; Dicklyon rejected it. Other input would be appreciated.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good compromise to me. --Crusio (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is that it obscures what "both sides of the controversy" refers to, and hides the fact that Dreger is taking one side of the controversy, while the majority of the commentaries take the other; it has to be looked at in context, but it appears likely the TheLibrarian is proposing again to present the Dreger article as neutral, and to suppress the fact that it provoked a firestorm of reaction. Dicklyon (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Dreger was anything but neutral at the start of her analysis, and there is even reason to believe she was biased against Bailey at that time. It is entirely appropriate for a professional historian and bioethicist, like Dreger, to come to and express a conclusion and after reviewing the evidence. (That's what historians do.) Because that conclusion is published in a RS, it qualifies for merits mention here. To the extent that my (or Dicklyon's) edits reflect what is in the RS's versus in our own heads is judgment for other editors to make, and I continue to encourage them to do so.br/>
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, her prior work with Bailey on the DSD terminology and such is not relevant, and she has every right to form, express, and defend her conclusions and opinions about all this mess. I have no problem referencing her conclusions. But it's basically an opinion piece, and has been attacked as bad history, and quotes some of the principles out of context, distorting their views, which has drawn their ire. Suppressing this aspect and acting as if it's just another peer-reviewed research article, instead of a biased opinion piece taking the side Bailey, and attacking the transwomen, is all that I object to. Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In its latest edit, TheLibrarian has again obscured that fact that most of the commentaries on Dreger are specifically critical of the Dreger article. By putting "twenty-three commentaries regarding multiple aspects of the controversy" where we had "twenty-three commentaries on Dreger's account were also published, many of them critical of her analysis", we lose the point that the commentaries were as much about Dreger's hatchet job on the critics as about the previously underlying controversy; this point still comes through in the titles in the footnote, but I don't see why it's more "neutral" to omit it. And the edit certainly was not in response to anything on this talk page, was it? Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than revert what was a very awkward rewrite with triple repetition of "Bailey's critics," I put in a bit, from the sources, about who was making each complaint. I checked the sources carefully, edited the text to be consistent with them, and added URLs where I could so that others can verify and fix better if needed. I added a phrase at the end to make it clear that some of the commentaries are about Dreger more than about the Bailey book. I didn't say many, though one could. OK? This is perhaps too much on the controversy. As in the Conway article, it might make sense to shorten it, linking the controversy page. In that case, omitting Dreger's analysis would make it easy to avoid mentioning the additional controversy that she started. Dicklyon (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

dueling quotations

Dick,

You seem to favor an unqualified quotation attributed to McCloskey: "Nothing we have done, I believe, and certainly nothing I have done, overstepped any boundaries of fair comment on a book and an author..."

At least a significant minority of our readers will know about, or find out about, Andrea James' "deliberately offensive satire" and will think of this incident when they read any sweeping self-exonerations from critics.

The major problem with using the quotation as a statement of absolution is that it mispresents McCloskey's actual position and makes it appear that she endorses the attack against the children as "fair comment". Remember that McCloskey says, "I am appalled by Andrea James’s vulgar satire using his children",[16] and that nearly every prominent critic has made a similar statement at some point. How many times do you suppose McCloskey has already replied to offended readers of the NYT article that "I am appalled by Andrea James’s vulgar satire using his children, and I have said so publicly"? Shall we negligently inflict more of that thankless task on her?

So while I'd be fine with including the general concept, and sourcing it to this statement (and ideally adding an extra ref to a similar statement by Conway or Serano), I don't think that it's either fair or accurate to put McCloskey in the position of appearing to assert that every single critic is as innocent as a spring lamb, because she has publicly stated the opposite position.

Instead of this direct quotation, I think we want to include a general statement like "Critics believe that their actions against Bailey and his book represent legitimate comment on a topic of public interest." The difference here is that this doesn't put McCloskey in the false position of endorsing every possible critic. It also appears to be accurate, because each individual critic does appear to believe that her own actions were acceptable, whatever other people might have done. For example, doubtless James thinks her own actions constitute fair comment, else she would have long since issued a public apology for her equally public offense, and every defense of her actions would begin with something like, "I am sorry I used his children, because it hurt them, because no one's kids should be blamed for their parents' views, and because the scandal over my satirical piece distracts people from my real message, which is...."

Will this work for you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not picky on this. Just that the quote from one side (Bailey?) needed to be followed up by either a quote or a paraphrase from the alternate point of view. Since the McCloskey quote followed in the cited source, I picked that. It never occurred to me that it could be interpreted as saying that she approved of what James had done, but I can see your point. I'll let you and others decide, as I'm not editing here any more. Where are these quotations, anyway? I can't find them in this article; was it a different article? Dicklyon (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added the 'balancing' statement. Does anyone have a favorite quotation from another prominent critic that could be used to support this statement? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Misconduct?

This article includes the 'Scientific Misconduct' category. The inclusion of this category might be regarded as questionable or non-neutral since it implies that Bailey is, in fact, guilty of scientific misconduct. Exactly what are the grounds for this article being categorized this way? The same question can be asked of the 'Academic Scandals' category, since it could be read as judging the issue of whether it is Bailey or his critics whose behavior is the 'scandal.' Skoojal (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it "innocent until proven guilty?" There were allegations of misconduct and there have been investigations, but evidently Bailey was cleared. According to WP:BLP these categories should be removed. --Crusio (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, quite. I'm inclined to remove those categories in the near future, and will, in the absence of objections. Skoojal (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Bailey was not cleared. See Northwestern U. Will Not Reveal Results of Investigation Into Sex Researcher (already in the refs). As physician Charles Moser noted, "The allegations were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct." [17] That should probably go in the article, too. Jokestress (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
"did not constitute any formal misconduct". So after an investigation, it was "formally" shown that he had not been guilty of misconduct. Innocent until proven guilty then means that because he was shown to be not guilty he should be considered innocent (I almost sound like a lawyer :-). --Crusio (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly. NU determined the portion of the charges they investigated did not fall under the federal definition of scientific misconduct. However, they did not investigate everything, and the fact that they did not reveal their findings means no conclusive determination can be made regarding guilt or innocence beyond the definitions of federal scientific misconduct. It's entirely possible they found him guilty of some sort of misconduct based on state, local, institutional, or other policies or ethical guidelines, or they may have conversely found him innocent. It appears likely we won't know, since NU has refused to reveal their findings. They certainly did not "clear" him, though his defenders have been keen to imply Northwestern did. Anything about the outcome beyond the narrow scope of federal definitions is speculation and should not be in the article. Jokestress (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't follow this. "Innocent until proven guilty" is used for far worse crimes than scientific misconduct. As far as I can see, nobody has proven that Bailey was guilty of misconduct. Perhaps NU found something (personally, I find it unlikely that they would find something and then not take some punitive measures), but the fact remains that we have no reliable sources proving that misconduct was committed. WP:BLP demands that we do not put up any unproven allegations. The burden of proof is on those who say somebody is guilty of something. So you're wrong when you say that his innocence is speculation, it's the other way around: his possible guit is speculation and BLP stipulates that it has to go. --Crusio (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I find it unlikely they would have "cleared" him and not announced it. But as with your beliefs, mine are speculation, too. As far as punitive measures, we do not know what (if any) measures were taken, because they were not announced. Provost Dumas stated: "I have now received the formal report of the committee charged to investigate the matter; and I have taken action that I believe is appropriate in this situation. Consistent with the established procedures pertaining to such matters and general University practice, personnel actions concerning University employees are confidential." Nothing can be concluded from that regarding some black-and-white concept of guilt or innocence. It is one of the reasons the case received so much attention. It's a very murky and complicated matter that does not lend itself to simplification, and the article should reflect the complexities. Jokestress (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Bailey was "not cleared" (to use Jokestress' half-truth) because the relevant groups didn't see enough evidence even to bother conducting an investigation. From all the various complaints files by Jokestress and Bailey's other detractors, only one group was convinced that it was worth looking into, and if they ever found Bailey guilty of anything, they never said so. As an analogy, imagine that I wrote a letter to the California State Capitol accusing Jokestress of stealing plutonium. Rather than spend money investigating bizarre charges, the Capitol would simply ignore them. It would be misleading (to the point of lying?) for me to thereafter claim that Jokestress was "never cleared" of the plutonium allegations.
Personally, because Jokestress herself was one of the people filing complaints against Bailey, I believe her comments here are grossly inappropriate.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Jokestress, is that true, that you were one of the persons filing complaints against Bailey?? If so, what are you doing editing here? WP:COI!! --Crusio (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Northwestern conducted a full investigation, including interviews with the woman depicted in his book with whom Bailey had sexual contact, as well as other complainants. The claim that they ignored the other charges is inaccurate. Northwestern merely limited their released findings to matters pertaining to federal definitions of scientific misconduct.
Crusio, I am familiar with the facts of the case as well as the pertinent reliable sources. I generally limit my contributions to the talk page, except in the cases of factual errors introduced into the article. It is not a COI to comment on a topic with which one is familiar. Jokestress (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I see from the page history that you have indeed hardly edited the article itself. Comment is welcom, I guess, as long as you keep aware of the dangers of COI. In any case, given the above, I have been bold and removed the "scandal" and "misconduct" categories from the article. --Crusio (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It is my opinion that Jokestress has indeed grossly and repeatedly violated [WP:COI], not only with the Bailey page, but also others. For example, she has written to the administrators at the hospital where Ken Zucker and Ray Blanchard work saying that they should be fired, yet she has freely edited their pages, as well as the information about them that is contained on other pages.
It is my belief that Jokestress is using WP as an outlet for her continuing efforts to spread rumors about people she disagrees with. I have confronted her previously indicating my belief that her editing of those pages was inappropriate, but she responded by saying that WP rules do not require that she be neutral, only that her edits be. (My opinion is that her edits are not.)
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 22:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest opening a COI complaint if you believe my edits are violative, but I suspect response will mirror the similar BLP complaint from June. In the meantime, we should focus on article content here. Jokestress (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The content question is completed; the 'scientific misconduct' category has been removed. Only Jokestress expressed that mere allegations (which Jokestress created) should receive mention. Whether this constitutes fair editing or Jokestress' use of WP to concretize her own off-wiki attacks against Bailey is a judgment that editors must make for themselves. I have already expressed my own opinion.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"best known among scientists"

This phrase in the lede is inaccurate and unprovable. I don't think we have any evidence that Bailey isn't best known among scientists for the accusations of having sex with a patient/research subject. There's also no evidence that scientists know him for something different than non-scientists. I propose we change this to simply "known." If we wish to keep this slanted and unproven claim, it needs a source. Jokestress (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Because Jokestress has herself included the phrase "best known" in several of the WP bio's she has written none with any source whatsoever, her demand that other editors provide such sources is hypocritical until she does the same with her own edits. Examples of Jokestress' use of the very term she decries include Susan Bradley and Lori Brotto.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Shall we discuss your use of "controversial"? Or perhaps instead of your constant accusations of hypocrisy and impropriety by other editors, we can focus on improving articles. I believe that "best known among scientists" is not accurate in this case because it is not proven, and that the use of "among scientists" is part of attempts to make Bailey seem more scientific. Bradley and Brotto are best known for one thing, and it's not really controversial. There is not another thing for which they might be best known. Bailey is well-known for two things, and I don't think we have any evidence as to which he is better known for. He has certainly gotten more recent press for the sex charges, etc. Jokestress (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not "other editors." Just you. At least, I have not seen any other editor so frequently accuse third parties of doing what you have done yourself. Moreover, none of my comments were limited to mere accusation: For each instance of hypocritical remarks you have made, I have provided examples, including the specific pages and diffs where you engaged in precisely the behavior for which you were admonishing others.

As for what Bailey is best known, because it is only the scientists (including me) who knew Bailey both before and after your efforts to re-cast him, it is only the scientists and not you are in the position to know what he is known for. Moreover, according to CBSnews producers: "[H]is work is highly regarded by all of the researchers in the field who we spoke with, and we felt that he was a very worthy person to discuss these issues."
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 18:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It might depend on how widely you define "scientists". Within the specialty, his research is doubtless more important. But if by "scientists" you mean "old-school professors in any vaguely science-related field", then IMO the scandal -- not just the single claim of having sex with someone he interviewed [which seems not to bother anyone much], but the whole thing, and most particularly Northwestern's cowardice on the subject of academic freedom and free speech -- is likely more important. None of this matters without reliable sources, though, and those are hard to come by. The CBSnews statement is a better source than I would have expected to exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing's point of view is well taken. To me, "scientists" means sexologists. (Admittedly, that is where I am sitting.) The import to general scientists, as WhatamIdoing says, is the academic freedom issue. I would respond, however, that the academic freedom issues do not contribute very much to the notability of Bailey so much as to the notability of those who have attacked academic freedom, using Bailey as one of their soapboxes.

As an analogy, Joseph McCarthy's attacks on freedoms established the notability of Sen. McCarthy, not the notability of his victims. The subjects of his attacks were already notable for whatever it was that brought them into McCarthy's crosshairs. Historical/encyclopedic treatments of McCarthy's victims include mention of the events, but concentrate on the subjects' accomplishments on their own. Said another way: McCarthy has little (but not nothing) notable other than his attacks, but his victims do; Andrea James has little (but not nothing) notable other than her attacks, but her victims do. So, it is my opinion that issues pertaining to attacks on academic freedom should be linked to Andrea James, not each of the many people on her long list of enemies, which are available on her website. (Incidentally, McCarthy also had a list, made famous in his Wheeling speech.)
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The McCarthy analogy is certainly imperfect (see "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"), but otherwise I think we generally agree: it doesn't seem appropriate either to leave the campaign out of the activists' bios or to particularly emphasize it in the people they criticize. Having said that, for Bailey in particular, as the central figure in this attack, it would be strange to omit the scandal entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing is agreeing that it would be inappropriate emphasis to say that Bailey is best known for the controversy about him, and that it is preferable to write that he is best known for his scientific accomplishments. Yes? The inclusion of the phrase "among scientists" adds precision, if nothing else, but I would not object to its removal.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 22:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I still contend it's a little POV and unprovable. It also raises a question of a distinction - if we have that, it begs the question what he's best known for among non-scientists. Again, I don't think we can say for sure on that, either. I would prefer "best known" to eliminate the issues with that phrasing. Jokestress (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Best known among scientists" could be changed to "well known." I do not think it is yet clear if Bailey is well known for the controversy, although surely the article should (and clearly does) address the controversy. ProudAGP (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no preference between "best known" and "well known," nor for whether "among scientists" need be included.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 15:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to state what a person is known for, unless there's a source to support that. It's better to just say what they've done. The current statement of what Bailey is best known for is supposedly supported by three papers by himself, which seems unlikely. It's more likely that he is now best known for his book controversy, but there's probably not a source to support that, so leave it alone. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

chairman resignation sentence will go

I intend to remove this sentence unless someone can provide a convincing explanation why it should stay. This fact has been pushed as innuendo that Bailey resigned because of the book controversy, and both he and his university have denied this. That someone resigned as chairman of a department is hardly by itself worth including. I'll wait a day or so.ProudAGP (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It has appeared in a number of news sources and was considered newsworthy by the press, including top academic trade magazine The Chronicle of Higher Education. The timing was discussed by Dreger and others. Jokestress (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Without the context of the controversy, it makes little sense that it's there. With the context, it is innuendo. Just because something was newsworthy by the press, it doesn't necessarily mean it should be here. Lots of things have appeared about Bailey that can't be on here, due to room. But your position is not surprising. Let's see what others say.ProudAGP (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Something being newsworthy according to a reliable source is exactly what makes it relevant to include; the article is not short on space is it? It's a good question whether it should stand alone as it now, with no apparent connection to anything relevant, or whether it should be noted that the resignation was during the investigation, which is actually what the source says and what made it newsworthy. Did the university deny any connection to the investigation? Where? Dicklyon (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

From the New York Times piece: "In October 2004, Dr. Bailey stepped down as chairman of the psychology department. He declined to say why, and a spokesman for Northwestern would say only that the change in status had nothing to do with the book."ProudAGP (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I see; sounds like a weak anon-attributed second-hand denial, but it's something. Probably should be reported that way, e.g. as "the NYT reporter indicated that a university spokesman said the change in status had nothing to do with the book." Dicklyon (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

From The Chronicle of Higher Education: "Meanwhile, Mr. Bailey resigned as chairman of the university's psychology department in October, said Alan K. Cubbage, a Northwestern spokesman, who added that the change had nothing to do with the investigation." It is pretty outrageous that early versions of this page lacked this qualification, in my opinion. How 'bout you Dicklyon? I continue to contend that this fact makes the resignation sentence something better omitted.ProudAGP (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree; if the resignation is mentioned, then so should the response be, especially as it's in the same source. Dicklyon (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see, it's not the same source, but a different Chronicle article. Can you provide a link to it? Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, I found an online copy of "Northwestern U Will Not Reveal Results of Investigation Into Sex Researcher". Dicklyon (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we could include the information in an entirely neutral fashion, leaving out all references to the scandal: "Bailey was the chair of the <name of department> from <year> to <year>." Presumably his CV would say as much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamIdoing. However, I cannot find the start date of Bailey's chairmanship.ProudAGP (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Bailey replaced William Revelle in 2001. However, I feel the most neutral presentation is to note that the resignation was covered in the press (the timing was notable), and note that said NU officials said it had nothing to do with the book. That way there is no ambivalence. Jokestress (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

ProudAGP significantly related to J. Michael Bailey article

I have added back the Notable Wikipedian template for User:ProudAGP, because that editor is significantly related to this article. We can discuss this here. Jokestress (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How is ProudAGP related? Just by being a proud autogynephile? Dicklyon (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:OUTING prevents elaboration. I have asked ProudAGP to be open and honest about that significant relation, to no avail so far. Jokestress (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I see. That's the same problem I had when I found out that User:MarionTheLibrarian is actually James Cantor (now User:James Cantor, who outed himself after concluding a big mediation where he refused to acknowledge his conflict of interest). Why isn't he listed on this page, too? Isn't he pretty tight with Bailey? Dicklyon (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, National Academies blurbed a glowing review from James Cantor for Bailey's book marketing, and James Cantor is quoted on Bailey's page about the book controversy, defending Bailey. User:James Cantor should probably be listed here, too. Jokestress (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How about Lynn Conway's friend and ex(?)-employee, Dicklyon?ProudAGP (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe User:Dicklyon is significantly related to the J. Michael Bailey article. Jokestress (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be OK to list me as related on the Lynn Conway page. I'm not at all related to Bailey or his field. As to the question mark on the "ex(?)", yes, it has been over 25 years since I worked with Conway in any capacity. Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I have not hidden my affiliations. Mentioning that here instead of responding is not useful for resolving the question. Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it extremely strange that someone can be stated to be significantly related to the subject of this article without any evidence whatsoever being presented to support this. Someone tell me why I shouldn't remove the mention of ProudAGP, because I'm strongly inclined to do that. Skoojal (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

ProudAGP said "I am not sure the tag is right, but I don't care if it's there." You could do a checkuser request if you want more details or ask ProudAGP to explain (though a checkuser would raise additional issues), but I can't provide details per WP:OUTING. We have to rely on ProudAGP to be open and honest about the significant connection. Jokestress (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Having no idea who ProudAGP is myself, I still find it pretty obvious that a new editor wouldn't choose a handle meaning "proud autogynephile" unless that editor was joining with the intention of supporting Bailey in his support of that concept. I mean, other explanations are possible, but the behavior also supports this interpretation. Personally, that's why I've requested that ProudAGP be open with its conflict of interest; allowing the listing as significantly related is one small step in that direction. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I find that a strange reasoning. If my user handle was "Proudphilatelist", would I then have to put a similar tag on any article related to philately that I would edit? --Crusio (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't see how could come to such a conclusion. However, if your editing agenda was also totally in support of a strong POV in favor of philately, then maybe that would be appropriate, but it's a stretch (as I realize it was intended to be). Dicklyon (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
It was indeed intended to be a stretch and I do see your point. But people are editing WP all the time having strong feelings about certain subjects and tagging all that would become quite bothersome. See for instance the articles about the recent Georgia-Russia war over South Ossetia. It was being edited by people from those regions and of course they all have strong feelings one way or another about those events. Should they now all have to tag those articles? I seriously don't know. --Crusio (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Cruisio: Actually, it would be more accurate an analogy if your username were ProudPedophile and all your edits on Wikipedia involved one controversy in which you had a clear involvement for many years. Your philately example confuses matters; one of the issues here is that -phile is frequently understood to mean "love" (as in philately) when the proponents of the term are in fact using it to mean a sex-fueled mental illness. In terms of your nationality analogy, I believe that an editor directly involved for years with a political leader, attempting to alter the outcome of the elections in favor of that leader, whose edits on Wikipedia all promoted that leader and denigrated the leader's critics, should be listed as significantly related. Jokestress (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't want to muddle things, I tried to come up with a completely innocuous example and choose "collecting stamps", without realizing that the "phile" part could be misunderstood when I tried to do things too neatly and went to "philately" to describe "collecting stamps"... :-) --Crusio (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To reply to Jokestress: ProudAGP's stating that "I am not sure the tag is right" is not evidence that it is right. That ProudAGP himself or herself does not currently object to the tag does not convince me that it should stay; adding such tags without real evidence appears without justification (and I don't consider a couple of vague comments by ProudAGP to be real evidence). I am not removing it on behalf of ProudAGP, with whom I have had little or no contact. I suggest that, rather than edit warring over this, you seek more involvement by other editors. Skoojal (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, by the standards proposed above, every single transperson would have to be listed at every trans-related article they edit. For that matter, every single person who has any sort of medical or psychological condition would have to be listed at every article that matches any keyword in their medical files.
I can see the value of listing yourself at an article if your real name appears in it (or could). I can see listing yourself if you have significant professional connections -- for example, if you are editing your company's article, have written significantly about the subject, or are otherwise paid to promote or advocate a POV in your real life.
I don't think that this template is intended to be used for people with garden-variety connections to a subject. Hypercholesterolemia is presumably edited by people with high cholesterol, and I'll bet that some people there have strong views about what has and hasn't helped them. But I don't think that rises to the level needed for this tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The editor in question meets your criteria but has not admitted it yet. I suppose noting it in this section is enough.Jokestress (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Unwitting research subjects

The named source says: "A transsexual woman who is described in a book by J. Michael Bailey, chairman of the psychology department at Northwestern University, says he had sex with her while she was an unwitting subject of his research."

JMS's statement that she was "an unwitting subject of his research" does not actually mean that JMS was an unwitting subject of his research.

The existing text -- "when she was an unwitting subject of his research" -- will be reasonably interpreted by our readers as a factual statement that JMS truly was (1) unwitting and (2) a subject of research.

Every source that has mentioned this since 2004 has denied both (1) and (2) -- the first, because it's beyond belief that a person that is actively debating Bailey's representation of her in his book could possibly be claim that the book was a surprise, and the second, because chatting with people in a bar, or taking oral histories, or inviting them to give presentations to your classes, does not make them "subjects of his research" and therefore JMS can't have been a "subject of his research".

I'm open to many options, but we shouldn't be falsely affirming the widely rejected claim that JMS was a subject of IRB-controlled research. Also, the specific sentence in this article is practically word-for-word out of the source, which I think is a WP:COPYVIO concern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A slightly longer snippet of the existing text is "alleging that he had sex with her when she was an unwitting subject of his research". What's wrong with this again? She's not simply alleging that he had sex with her is she? Would that have been an ethics violation, if not for the allegation that she was his unwitting research subject at the time? The fact that her allegation has been denied is not a reason to poorly represent what the allegation was, is it? Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
JMS asserted two claims ("being a research subject without her consent" and "having sex with her consent"). The sentence we have will mislead readers into thinking that JMS asserted a single claim ("having sex") at an apparently undisputed time ("when she was his research subject"). We need to present this in a fashion that communicates that claiming to be a research subject is itself an allegation made by JMS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Lesbian porn

I don't have the time to find reliable sources for this (nor the necessary lack of personal bias), but would like to leave the ideia on the air: most lesbian porn is awful for women - because it's targeted to a male audience. Personally, for me that sort of pornographic material is so excessively fake, forced and far from what's desirable to a woman that it has the exact opposite effect it is intended to. Normally when a woman wants lesbian porn she has quite some trouble until finding sources by women for women. I would bet my head in which kind Mr. Bailey chose for his... research. Anasofiapaixao (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion page, but for the contents of the article - not the research of the subject. Do you have a specific addition in mind for the article that doesn't fail WP:OR as an original synthesis? That is, you wouldn't be the first person applying that criticism but could cite it to a reliable source? Avruchtalk 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really, that is why I was wondering if anyone could. I didn't know other people have pointed that out already, sorry. Also, even if I did have sources, the most I could do would be giving them here because I am so biased on this subject that I don't think I could even edit formatting here without introducing POV. And sorry for the... three-year delay on giving an answer... - Ana Sofia Paixão 10:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Anasofiapaixao, Bailey's research actually did find women to be aroused by lesbian porn in the lab. So I'm not sure how applicable your criticism is; even if he did choose a kind of lesbian porn that you dislike, the women in the study found it arousing. I will point out that just because porn is targeted to a male audience hardly means it will not arouse women as well. Moreover, a woman can easily dislike certain material on some level and still be sexually aroused by it. Many women report arousal from porn that is far nastier and forceful than Penthouse-style lesbian porn, e.g., much of yaoi, manga, or rape fantasy. As an aside, it is ironic that Bailey - a man who usually seems determined to back up every gender stereotype he can find - contradicted the false generalization that women are not aroused by visual stimuli. (Even if one rejects Bailey's study due to its methodological problems and such, that generalization has been falsified from many angles.) SSovereign (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it didn't. It only showed women get "genitally" aroused by every kind of sexual image in similar way, but it doesn't correspond with their subjectal feeling of arousal, and other studies showed it has nothing to do with brain regions linked with inhibitions, so the fact is: that "arousal" is not arousal, rather simple vaginal lubrication which many women get all the time and by anything.--83.16.109.226 (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

May 2011 fucksaw demonstration developments

Northwestern has announced the first phase of the outcome of Bailey's live fucksaw seminar.

Proposed text:

In May 2011, Northwestern administration cancelled the sexuality course for 2012. President Morton Schapiro said that while professors have the privilege of academic freedom, they also have to act responsibly. A Northwestern spokesperson said the school was considering moving the class to another department, saying, "Courses in human sexuality are offered in a variety of academic departments in other universities, and Northwestern is reviewing how such a course best fits into the University’s curriculum."

Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that a single-purpose account already added that to the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting Jokestress (Andrea James) Banned From This Article - Extreme NPOV Concerns

I've recently begun a personal study on the whole Bailey book/research controversy and I decided to come to Wikipedia to harvest some information. I always make a trip to the talk page so I can attempt to figure out just how bad the NPOV issues are on the particular article. I notice that there are a few VERY vocal people on this talk page, not that that's a problem, but sometimes it's indicative of an imbalance of opinion. Statements like this are always red flags:

You can read Kinder, gentler homophobia from The Advocate to learn more about what Bailey has against the gay population. Jokestress 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

After taking a trip to Jokestress' profile page I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary (no extreme activism, etc.) which could indicate extreme bias. I moved on and continued researching, eventually landed on an article in the New York Times. In the article I was appalled to find that an Andrea James harassed Bailey's family in horrible ways:

The site also included a link to the Web page of another critic of Dr. Bailey’s book, Andrea James, a Los Angeles-based transgender advocate and consultant. Ms. James downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided. (Dr. Bailey is a divorced father of two.) Ms. James said in an e-mail message that Dr. Bailey’s work exploited vulnerable people, especially children, and that her response echoed his disrespect.

Also, from Alice Dreger's blog (I know she's not objective either, but what she says is disturbing, including the quotes from emails sent to her from Andrea James):

I also heard from Ms. James herself who unfortunately lived down to my expectations by sending me obnoxious emails including threats. Some people have asked me whether these were really threats. Let me say they were threatening enough that I sent the mail on to my dean, who sent it on to university counsel, who asked me to let the police know about our concerns. I am not bothering to post what she wrote since I see no point in spreading what amounts to rhetorical toxins. Let me just say that her choice of the admonition “Bad move, mommy” suggested she is still interested in dragging people’s children (including now my own) into her intimidation tactics. Her further reference to my five-year-old son as my “precious womb turd” also suggested that she is astonishingly juvenile.

This is absolutely disgusting behavior and I cannot believe that Andrea James is allowed to comment on this article because of her extreme, horrible, POV. Targeting children to make a point is NEVER acceptable.

There are other LGBT activists on here too, for example, CyntWorkStuff:

It is quite possible that Professor Bailey is in his personal life a good and well-meaning person, but that is not the thrust of the piece. It is his record as a researcher in his chosen field which is, to be charitable, "somewhat flawed".

That doesn't sit right with me, her language smacks of Wikipedia activism, not objectivity.

I don't have a problem with activists on Wikipedia as long as they are objective, but I wish those editing had less to gain by tarring and feathering the person that the article is about.

69.114.11.47 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom practically banned her already. Let's see how much this page changes as a result of that. 5.12.69.171 (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

2011 fucksaw demonstration

Since the recent fucksaw demonstration is making news internationally, and since several thousand readers came to this article today to learn more, I have gathered some of the more prominent sources (WSJ, WaPo, NYTimes, NPR, major Chicago media outlets) and prepared a proposed synopsis for possible inclusion in the article:

2011 fucksaw demonstration
In 2011, The Daily Northwestern reported that Bailey had paid sex tour guide Ken Melvoin-Berg to speak to students after class about kink.[1][2] Also presenting were 45-year-old Jim Marcus and his 25-year-old partner Faith Kroll, who demonstrated a fucksaw for students.[3][4][5][6] Kroll, a self-described exhibitionist,[7] said she agreed to be penetrated and brought to orgasm because she enjoys "having the attention and being used."[8] Northwestern initially issued a statement in support of the demonstration.[9] Bailey also defended the decision in a prepared statement.[10] Some students in attendance felt it was educational.[11] Later, University President Morton Schapiro said the demonstration "represented extremely poor judgment."[12] Schapiro also announced that the school was launching an investigation.[13] Bailey later issued a new statement, apologizing "for upsetting so many people" and insisting there had been no harm in the demonstration.[14][15]

Anyone so inclined is welcome to add this (with any revisions you deem appropriate). Should we also mention it in the intro? Jokestress (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe it would be inappropriate to use a summary that (1) ignores all the positive statements in favor of all the negative ones, (2) gratuitously and repeatedly employs the word "fucksaw" for its shock value, and (3) is written with obvious slant by user:Jokestress, who has maintained for many years multiple attack sites against Bailey while failing to disclose her obvious bias. Indeed, the extent of Jokestress' bias is so extreme, it was reported in The New York Times, when she posted photos of his young children with obscene captions (here).
In the interests of my own full disclosure (as I recommend all others do): Bailey and I are in the same academic field and hold many similar views of research in our field, I have defended some of those views previously as part of my professional career as a sexologist (and in opposition to Jokestress' views), and I believe that academic freedom of speech is more important than the belief that sex is at all harmful or that college students must be protected from it. My pledge not to edit J. Michael Bailey has been on my userpage for a very long time, as has my unanswered recommendation that Jokestress do the same.
Although Jokestress is acting appropriately in not adding the above to the mainpage herself, I believe it is very poor form (at least) for her to fail to disclose her long-standing involvement with the subject in making her above recommendation. I believe this issue should be left to editors those who lack long-standing personal issues with Bailey.
— James Cantor (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
@James Cantor: Both of our disclosures are described right at the top of this page. The only "negative" sentence in the proposed text is the one quoting the President of the University. The three preceding it are all supportive of Bailey. Perhaps you can propose an alternate with citations? The major part of this that's missing from the article (and the newsworthy part) is the President's statements and announcement of an investigation. As far as using "Fuck Saw," that is what the device is called by the retailer (JT's Stockroom), and I included a reliable source that called it that (using the variant "fucksaw"). I think we should call it what it is, since it was neither a vibrator nor a drilldo, but a modified multi-speed reciprocating saw with a dildo attached, sold as a fucksaw. Wikipedia is not censored just because it offends your sensibilities. Jokestress (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you two both stop commenting on each other. Each time that you two show up somewhere, we get all the same rehashed stuff again written out. If you two both would limit yourself to the content, I am sure things will work out much faster. And if you cannot respond to the other without commenting on the editor, don't respond at all. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black

James Cantor, as the editor who started his wikipedia career by posting and citing your own inflammatory comments on the WP bio of the editor known as Jokestress, you have no standing to be criticizing her. She posted what looks to me like a reasonable proposal here on the talk page, and asked for improvements. Focus on the content please. On the face of it, her proposal looks sensible and balanced. Propose a rewording if you have one. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Who might be blacker than who will never be resolved, and does not need to be resolved—The correct thing to do remains the same: This issue should be left to editors those who lack long-standing personal issues with Bailey.
As with Jokestress, user:Dicklyon also neglects to disclose his full involvement, albeit a less florid one than Jokestress'. user:Dicklyon is a former employee of Lynn Conway who also maintains attacks sites against Bailey. (My own disclosure: I am a former student of Ray Blanchard, who has published ideas Bailey supports and Conway opposes.) This conflict has disrupted numerous WP pages and has been in and out of mediation (etc.) many times. My userpage contains the same invitation that Dicklyon join me in my pledge not edit the family of pages, which he declined, and he now and then "slips" into editing in places where he has a mediated agreement not to.
All that said, and regardless of who likes whom, the bottom line is the same: The best thing for WP is for all three of us to just stay out of it.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with the last statement!-- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I was not her employee; I worked for Xerox. She was my manager; a very long time ago. Now she's a friend. I don't think that's a reason why I need to stay out of editing Bailey's page; I got drawn into it by your attack on Lynn Conway, and I have nothing against Bailey; I am not an off-wiki participant in these skirmishes like you and Andrea are. Still, it will be better if someone else does the editing. Dicklyon (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I wonder if it might be better to wait a while (at least a week or so) before adding anything to the article. "Breaking news" isn't exactly within Wikipedia's remit, and it sounds like more sources might be available before much longer. I don't think we want to be updating this every time someone at Northwestern gives another interview to the media. Perhaps this would be a good moment to remember that WP:There is no deadline.

On the point of the proposed text, I'm not convinced that we need to include the names of any of the people involved (except Bailey, naturally).

Also, I think it might make more sense to present this in the larger context of the unusual speakers Bailey arranges. This doesn't appear to be an isolated event, after all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable on all counts. (I also agree with the comments made above by James about the term fucksaw appearing to have been chosen for its shock value, in a way that does not reflect the cited sources.) --JN466 04:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
A fucksaw by any other name...

@WhatamIdoing: Agree that we are in no rush on this. @Jayen466: The reason the incident got so much attention is precisely because of the device used: a fucksaw. As sourced in the proposed text above, a number of other media pieces use the term:

  • "a live sex show that involved a naked non-student woman being brought to orgasm by a sex toy called a "fucksaw." New York (March 4) [18]
  • We'll spare you the gory details—but let's just say they involved the woman's boyfriend bringing her to climax on stage, using a contraption called a "fucksaw," The Daily Beast [3]
  • Bailey allowed a guest lecturer, Ken Melvoin-Berg, to narrate the use of the sex toy -- referred to as a "f---saw" on a woman who was not a Northwestern student. Fox News[4]
  • "he stands by his decision to let one guest presenter use a sex toy -- rather unsubtly known as the "fucksaw" --" Salon.com [5]
  • The equipment was appaerently a device called a Fuck Saw, which is sold by Stockroom. AVN [6]

Gawker Media's extensive coverage also includes:

Bailey himself appears to know that word is a major component of the controversy. In his taped interview with the Chicago Tribune, he avoids saying it on camera ("I don't know if they used that word").

  • The best explanation about why we should use the word appears in a Chicago Sun-Times editorial:

That said, the professor failed the “and how will this look?” test. A major university requires massive infusions of money, both from students ponying up $52,000 per annum (that’s “each year,” which I must spell out now that everyone’s studying orgasms instead of Latin) and from grateful alumni — gratitude that could conceivably be dampened by the image of Miss Kink being pleasured on a towel with a device called . . . called . . . well, I’m not allowed to even hint at its name. Left to my own devices, I would. But a newspaper, like a college, still has conventions. I can push those conventions, but part of my job is to keep my boss from angry phone calls. So while I still believe in the First Amendment, I also have a respect for the newspaper and its reputation, not to mention my own, what’s left of it. Were I to — oh for instance — write a column urging readers to drown puppies and then mail their damp carcasses to the governor to protest state finances, I would have enough savvy to pop into the editor’s office and give him a heads up. Sure, he might snip a line or two — but better to talk it out ahead of time than sweat it out later, as Professor Bailey is discovering. --Neil Steinberg, Northwestern will be hearing sex show talk for a long time .

The censoring conventions which Steinberg describes do not apply to Wikipedia or some other mainstream media. We should describe the incident and device without censorship. Calling it a "sex toy" doesn't really accurately describe that it was a construction-grade reciprocating saw used for gut rehabs and tearing out sheetrock, with a dildo replacing the saw blade. Hence the name fucksaw. Jokestress (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done a more complete write-up of the controversy and its outcome, and reorganised the research section according to distinct topics. Please review. --JN466 03:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I think what you wrote is okay, but did you intend for it to go in the "Research on sexual arousal" section? I think that it might be better to create a separate section for his class/speakers program. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Because the demonstration was about sexual arousal, I thought it fitted with that subsection. But I see what you mean. Strictly speaking, it was not about his research in this subject area at all, but about his university teaching. Please feel free to move it, or create a separate section. The thing is, if we create a section on his university teaching, it should contain more than just the write-up of this incident. --JN466 04:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Are there other things about his class/speakers program in the news? I'd say make a section that emphasizes what's in sources, as is usual. Dicklyon (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: By staying out of it, I mean staying out of it. Their discussion has been going perfectly smoothly---and that was possible only because of our absence. There is no reason to slip now from an obviously successful strategy. The lack of disruption to this page far outweighs any minor suggestion any of us could give.— James Cantor (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

@JN466: Your summary is pretty good. A couple of key elements are missing, though. The lead story in the Times Higher Education piece is a model here. See The week in higher education.

  1. The investigation that is underway. Many of the news headlines were because President Schapiro had announced this.
  2. The name of the device. THE writes, "According to reports on 3 March, the woman, who is not a student, was 'repeatedly stimulated by a motorized sex toy called a "fucksaw" on stage'."
  3. The age differences of the participants.
  4. The relationship status of the participants.
  5. The female participant's motivation (attention and "being used").
  6. Former students who have defended Bailey (Paul Schrodt in Esquire, Joseph Bernstein in The Awl).
  7. Editorials which criticized Bailey's "apology" (Richard Roeper in Sun-Times, Chuck Goudie at ABC, Dennis Prager at National Review, Danielle Webb at Macleans, Sheena Goodyear at Toronto Sun).

I'll add those newer sources to my proposed summary and additional analysis since the incident. Jokestress (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think adding details is WP:DUE. In fact, I've been wondering whether we should trim the section by halving the somewhat extensive description of apologies, so that a five-minute impromptu incident isn't given more space than years of research on biology and sexual orientation.
I still like the idea of contextualizing it. There are at least some mentions of other speakers in the recent news articles. I believe there's always a panel of gay men, and the main speaker at this incident is someone who has spoken every year for five or ten years now. I believe Dreger's paper says a transwoman stripped naked during presentations, so nudity is clearly not a one-time event. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement that we should mention all the outliers Bailey frequently displays for students as evidence of his claims (selecting gay men with extraordinary numbers of sex partners, or exhibitionists who just get off on the attention). We should also consider updating his "gay, straight or lying" info now that he has recanted on his lucrative catchphrase. Jokestress (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that more would be undue. I've shortened the section a little, by streamlining the wording and cutting out redundancies. --JN466 04:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you seriously not going to mention what kind of "toy" it was? Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it matters. Nobody can seriously believe that bringing a naked woman to orgasm in front of the students with this 'toy' is a national scandal, but that with a different 'toy' it somehow would have been just fine. It doesn't pass the laugh test. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
It is mentioned, in accessible terms that any readers can understand: "an electric saw converted into a sex toy". --JN466 08:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
@JN466: The quote above should be wikilinked to Fucksaw, Sex-machine, or Reciprocating saw if we really want readers to understand. I am fine with reciprocating saw since it has a picture of the "toy" that was converted, though Fucksaw has more specific information about the types of devices for readers who require additional information. Jokestress (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Jokestress, look at the article. It is already wikilinked to sex-machine, which fucksaw itself redirects to. --JN466 12:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The quote above is not linked to sex-machine. It's a bit redundant as written (repetition of "sex toy"). The part above is more accurate and understandable, and you don't need to say that and "mechanized sex toy." More importantly, the investigation isn't mentioned in the current version. Jokestress (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally independent opinion - I just happened to be passing, and until I read this, I had no idea who Bailey was, or who these editors were, or what a 'fucksaw' was. IMHO, the section does not convey what happened in clear, encyclopaedic terms - specifically, it should

  • Show that the woman was the man's fiancee - currently, it is not even clear that it was a man and a woman, as it just says "a female guest speaker and her partner"
  • It should use the word "fucksaw", which conveys an entirely different perception than this pussy(no pun intended)-footing around about "mechanized sex toy". Fucksaw is covered in the linked article, so we should use the precise term
  • It should state that the woman was penetrated by the device, and brought to orgasm. Currently, it just says "the demonstration [...] featured an electric saw" - it does not convey what actually happened.

That's my 10p's worth, anyway. HTH us form a consensus / improve it.  Chzz  ►  18:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Mostly implemented by me, albeit a couple of years later. Such is the wikipace. 5.12.69.171 (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph moved

Having just come across this article and this story for the first time, I agree that it probably should be included in the article, but have moved it from the 'Research' section to the 'Appearances in news media' section. That seems more appropriate, as it was nothing to do with Prof Bailey's research activities. Robofish (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A better place would be a section about his overall teaching activities, even though his other ones have not been subject of much press, I suspect. 5.12.69.171 (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on J. Michael Bailey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on J. Michael Bailey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on J. Michael Bailey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on J. Michael Bailey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. Michael Bailey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

“Research and criticisms section”

I find this section, and it’s title, both messy and biased. First, ‘research’ and ‘criticisms’ is an extremely odd combination, and the section itself is comprised more of “views” than his research, which is much more extensive than just his quotes about people being within their rights to abort gay foetuses. Personal views are not “research”. Unfortunately it looks like some people have made ideologically motivated edits against Bailey, involving cherry picking of quotes, rather than actually representing his research (which is his main occupation). Trying to make bailey seem anti gay is just silly when in fact he’s consistently defended gay people. Consider the size of the paragraph about the fuck saw against the size of the paragraphs related to sexual orientation research. One incident gets more attention than 40 years of research. I would say his research and views sections should be separate from criticisms. Sxologist (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

For now, I removed the "and criticisms" part of the section heading, so it just says "research". As for there having been ideologically motivated edits in the past, that is true. You can see some of this in the old discussions above; it culminated in WP:ARBSEX and in a topic ban for the main instigator. Crossroads -talk- 05:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Consideration of Andrea James' 1998 autogynephilia confession

This section has been removed due to triple posting; see discussion at Talk:Andrea_James#Consideration_of_Andrea_James.27_1998_autogynephilia_confession

References

  1. ^ Needham, Nick (March 3, 2011). Northwestern University Investigating Use Of Sex Toy In Class. WFMY
  2. ^ Staff report (March 3, 2011). Meet the Sex Tour Guide. NBC Chicago
  3. ^ a b Bennett, Jessica (March 3, 2011). The Story Behind Northwestern University's Live Sex Class. The Daily Beast
  4. ^ a b Miller, Joshua Rhett (March 3, 2011). Northwestern University Professor Defends Explicit Sex Toy Demonstration After Class. Fox News
  5. ^ a b Clark-Flory, Tracy (March 3, 2011). The "live sex show" professor speaks. Salon.com
  6. ^ a b Hymes, Tom (March 3, 2011). Northwestern U. Live Sex Demo Gets National Attention. AVN
  7. ^ Associated Press (March 3, 2011). Northwestern U. To Investigate Class' Sex Toy Demo. NPR
  8. ^ Spak, Kara (March 3, 2011). NU class has live sex demonstration. Chicago Sun-Times
  9. ^ Helliker, Kevin (March 3, 2011). College Condemns Classroom Sex Show. Wall Street Journal
  10. ^ McGinn, Dave (March 3, 2011). Professor’s sexuality class too hot for officials . Globe and Mail
  11. ^ Cohen, Jodi S. (March 3, 2011). Some students in attendance expressed support Northwestern to investigate controversial sex demonstration. Chicago Tribune
  12. ^ Steinberg, Jacques (March 3, 2011). Extracurricular Sex Toy Lesson Draws Rebuke at Northwestern. New York Times
  13. ^ Babwin, Don (March 3, 2011). Northwestern U. to investigate class' sex toy demo. Washington Post
  14. ^ Staff report (March 5, 2011). NU prof issues new statement on sex controversy. Chicago Tribune
  15. ^ Spak, Kara (March 5, 2011). Northwestern sex prof apologizes for after-class sex demo. Chicago Sun-Times

Comment re: intro

Sentence reads: "He is best known among scientists for his work on the etiology of sexual orientation, from which he concluded that homosexuality is substantially inherited". I think that's a misnomer. Bailey has consistently maintained that male sexual orientation (gay or straight) is very likely "inborn" or "innate", but he doesn't say it's "substantially inherited". I also think it's fair to say he's barely focused on women so really it should say male homosexuality. If anyone else has any comments let me know. Otherwise I might attempt a rewrite if there are no objections? Sxologist (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. someone might like to add an auto archive on this page it's very long and has a few quibbles from a decade ago. Unless it's not going to be changed frequently enough for those to be archived. IDK what the standards are, but my OCD is tingling. Sxologist (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It's fine with me. As far as archiving goes, one can probably copy the archive bot template from another talk page, adjusting it if needed for the page name and to go to "Archive 1". Crossroads -talk- 20:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Retraction

I am not sure whether this belongs in the article but Bailey has just had a paper about "ROGD" retracted for failing to get adequate consent from the participants. He is spitting nails about it on Twitter.

DanielRigal (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

There is currently some discussion happening on the ROGD article talk page about this article retraction. Hist9600 (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._Michael_Bailey/Archive_1&oldid=1229761212"