Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Sex worker redux

About removing the words "sex worker": We went over the reasons why this particular person's occupation is relevant here. There was general agreement that we were going to present the facts and leave the decisions about whether sex workers were credible witnesses up to the reader. The information is sourced, and the specific person in question does not appear to hide involvement in the occupation.

Hfarmer, I assume that you weren't aware of the previous long discussion. Assuming that no facts have changed, I think this should be restored to its original wording. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow for once a conversation I had no part in and was totally unaware of. I will revert but let us take another whack at this issue. Would that we could get that same group of people + Banjeboi, and DickLyon in here sometime soon and have a real party. --Hfarmer (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is why this is a prejudicial use of language. JSM was not only a sex worker all her life. There are transwomen of color who have never been able to manage anything other than sex work. JSM is not such a person. She is known to have , if memory serves me, a degree from Devry in computer programming, and is a paralegal now. Focusing on her sex work misrepresents her and misrepresents the known facts. Even though we are only supposed to assert facts that are in Reliable sources. Should we not in composing our precise wording take into account information that is in self published biographical sources? I believe we should. The wikipedia policy WP:BLP states

Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subject themself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

• it is not unduly self-serving;

• it does not involve claims about third parties;

• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

• there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;

• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Therefore "Maria's Story" can be used to doccument facts about Maria herself, and nothing else. A side issue is that in the past Jokestress has objected to linking that page here.

It seems that we can either rely on only what is in dreger and call her a sex worker or prostitute. OR we could use equally slanted language and call her "Paralegal and former Computer Analyst". Or we could call her a Sex Worker, Computer Analyst, and Paralegal. Or we could just call her a transsexual woman and leave it at that. Those are the options I see in light of the sources and policy of wikipedia. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This is just one of the many ways in which Dreger likes to spin the story to favor one side; and Whatshisname only complained about this one aspect of your edits, because it didn't spin to the side that he is on, unlike the rest of your edits. Dicklyon (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually Dick What am I doing in this case merely informed me of previously reached consensus. There is no spin there. How about instead of being so quick to accuse others of being biased you take an honest look at yourself in the mirror and ask that person looking back at you if they are neutral on this issue. If they are honest they would recognize that they aren't. I am neutral. I make edits like this one all the time but you either don't notice or only complain when I try to neutralize some of the acidic vitriol that you and others would like to fill these pages with. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dreger provides very serious spin, and your treatment of her article as "reliable" and suppression of the alternative veiws from the commentaries is what I'm referring to. What "acidic vitriol" are you referring to that I've added? Dicklyon (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the issue of providing a proper source as being separate from the basic facts. Considering just the basic facts, nobody disputes that at the relevant time, JSM's primary (or perhaps sole) occupation was getting paid to have sex with people. You can call that "prostitution" or "sex work" or whatever you like (I believe that 'sex worker' is considered the least derogatory option), but it appears to be accurate, and nobody has ever tried to dispute that -- not JSM (who appears to be unusually public about it), not Bailey, not James, not anybody.

As a matter of providing a proper reliable source, I'd probably go with Dreger's paper (I assume this is mentioned in it?), because (1) WP:V considers journal articles to be a higher quality source than self-published information, and (2) it's already in the article, so it won't add any additional references to the list. I'm sure that we could provide multiple reliable and semi-reliable sources on this point, but I think that would tend to overemphasize it. (Nothing like a dozen refs to make the reader think some detail is truly important.)

And, yes, Dick, the reason I added this note was simply because we've already had an agreement on that particular point. I didn't pick apart each and every change because I didn't consider them to be important one way or another. For example, Hfarmer deleted a link to a copy of the actual complaint, which I would have left alone (a copy of a formal complaint is an authoritative source for its own contents, even if it is self-published). If you have specific concerns about any other edits that were made recently, please feel free to start a new section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

@ Dick.. What suppression? Need I remind you again that I argued in favor of including information from the commentaries, and websites such as lynnconway.com et al. ? Here and now I have made in this one case a good case for including information from a persons self published autobiography. WP Policy allows that. Dreger's article as whatamIdoing points out is reliable, by WP standards, because it is published in a peer reviewed journal. That's all there is to it. Sometimes it goes one way other times it goes the other.

How about I roll back to the status quo before my edits? Would that make both of you happy? --Hfarmer (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Your long string of edits started by taking out the word "alternatives." If you're going to do that, you should put instead some actual quotes from some of the commentaries. If you aren't willing to say there are alternatives, and treat Dreger's piece as more "reliable" than those alternatives, even though in your personal life as you say you are well aware of how slanted Dreger is, then how are we to interpret your intentions? Yes, reverting all that long string of edits would be an improvement. Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Dick we have been over this. There was a big long request for comments, allot of people from all sides participated. Our side, remember I was on your side in that debate, lost. That's done with. Looking again at the various policies related to reliable sources I don't see how we can treat those commentaries as reliable sources. Just so that you won't feel wronged. I am going to leave a message at WP:RS/N. Perhaps this time we can get uninvolved editors to agree to at least using the commentaries in some limited sense should be allowed. --Hfarmer (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Who lost was wikipedia, by allowing User:James Cantor to jump in with a biased summary of the discussion. There was never any final consensus to not cite the commentaries. There are other things I don't remember as you do, too. Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

DarlieB's Recent POV OR and Even Borderline Vandalous Edits

The title is as neutral as any title written about anything I have done here. :-|

These are the diff's going back through time:

• [1]

• [2]

• [3]

As you can see they are focused on removing any mention of the exact context in which Alice Dreger's work comes to us. The publication it was in, Or of her academic affiliation. Her affiliation would not be significant in most cases but it is in this one. It cuts two ways. Yes it does smack of an appeal to authority but it does also suggest a possible conflict of interest, since the person she was supposed to be impartially researching also works at NU. That is a important tidbit that should be in this article IMO.

Then in one of her edit summaries she alleges that "no investigation took place". Again she asserts this without a source. No one else has decided that Dr Dreger's looking at the time date stamps on emails is "not an investigation". Perhaps she can say it's an inadequate, or minimal, or pharsical etc. etc. investigation. But to say so could only be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I am going to give Darlie the benefit of the doubt and read her intent as being improving the article and report this to the WP:NOR/N.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The "no investigation took place" note in the summary was just a quick summary of why the statement should be attributed to Dreger, since we have only her word, no other source for it. I agree with you that we should mention Dreger being at Northwestern (so fix it). I also agree with Darlie that the prefix "Dr." is out of place in typical wikipedia style. And we still have a mention of NYT where it seems superfluous. I don't see any big deal with these edits, even if not perfect; what are you saying is original research or "borderline vandalous"? Sounds like just you being disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we talked about this already? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It does appear that we had settled on a reasonable wording at that time. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dick; That's a real double standard. When I call "your side" on something it's me being disruptive. But when you do it's you being responsible. Around Chicago we have a saying for doing that. "You act like you bleep don't stink." and bleep is not the word we use.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes we had discussed this before. It's in need of discussion again. The removal of information from wikipedia in contravention of policy (as well as adding it) can be thought of as a form of vandalism. You, Darlie and others do not like what this article is about so you seek to express that by defacing the look of the articles. And if possible making the articles themselves bad incomplete, or slanted in the negative wikipedia articles. That is if you are even capable of still seeing how our POV is not neutral but just as slanted as the POV of James Cantor. (Who by the by also thought his POV was so wonderfully neutral. I mention him because his position as an associate of the people at the CAMH is analgous to yours as a friend of Lynn Conway. Your both proxy's.)--Hfarmer (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

However that is not the main issue. The main issue is that darlie concluding that no investigation took place is OR. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As per the discussion on the WP:NOR/N if me and Dick understand eachother at all we agreed on this. That the title Northwestern University ethicist should be appended to Alice Dreger's name in the article when she is first introduced. The references to the New York Times are not necssary (what dreger wrote is in a RS in it's own right and mentioning NYT is slanted editing.) However I will point out that even as this "good first step" was taken no step was taken at all to strip out simmilar information in paragraph 3 of The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen#Controversy where the credentials of each and every person critical of Bailey's book are listed. (i.e. Psychologist Jamison Green). If one person's credentials are delisted then ALL of them logically and for the same reasons should also be delisted.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't agree on "ethicist"; that's a bit of an interpretation that sounds like it's design to support a POV. I'd go with "professor". Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The word ethicist is in her job title. It's what she does. Calling her an ethecist is like calling a physics professor an physicist. Furthermore it seems to be consensus based on the way other people are written about in the article to include the precise title and affilations of the players. i.e. "Executive Director Monica Casper of the Intersex Society of North America." If a long grand title like that can appear for a critic then NU ethicist can appear for Dreger.

Also if your goal is to deigrate Dreger for daring to not kiss your tush, or agree with you. The fact is that to many people Professor could sound more grandiose and authoratative than ethicist. Professor also would not stand by itself. I mean one could ask "Professor of what?". Get it.

Bottom line ethecist stays or all the other titles go anything else would not make sense and would not be WP:NPOV.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this article about the book or Alice Dreger ? The NYT quoted Dreger and did no investigation. If they did lets see it. You quote Dreger over and over and over and yet beyond defending Baileys right to publish she is in no way an expert o the subject or the book, Now I am sick of you harassment and coloring of my edits. One more and I will launch a formal complaint. These were good faith edits and not only did it not censor Dreger but gave her proper credit for having been the person who made those statements. DarlieB (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Notice Board

Just to keep things moving and not get in a unproductive argument with tunnelvision Dicklyon I have refered the issue of the commentaries back to the reliable sources notice board. I have asked that the positions expressed in the archive of the old discussion be taken into account in reaching a new consensus. Since I am sure that ProudAGP, Cantor, Jokestress, DarlieB etc will be back and may be observing this. I don't want to have to go through this a third or fourth round in such a short time.

I will also inform active editors that have recently become engaged. Will this make you happy Dick? --Hfarmer (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You may have to scroll down the page to see the discussion. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok I have notified everyone involved in editing this article, in the last discussion of this point, editing other related articles, etc. So we can have a real quorum of the people involved in this and once and for all settle this matter. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the direct link if anyone was having problem seeing it. -- Banjeboi 03:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for an inquiry into James Cantor editing this article

Is it me or do I find User:James Cantor editing this article a complete and utter betrayal of the standards of neutrality. He is an actual participant in the controversy and a cohort of the infamous Dr Bailey. " The book received praise from gay sexual behavior scientists James Cantor" . Some might consider Cantor a another huge bigot so I'd like to see wiki giver clarity on issues of participants writing their own articles. Perhaps Dr Bailey or Alice Dreger ( hfarmer ) would like to comment.DarlieB (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he and I have agreed not to edit the article, from a mediation when he was doing it more surreptitiously as User:MarionTheLibrarian. He is clearly very non-neutral, as you say, and pushes hard on this talk page, which he has every right to do, and has close allies that help him push the POV of the academic sexologist friends of Bailey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DickLyon (talk • contribs)

Yes I recall that. It is interesting that Dick more or less accuses me and anyone not on his side of being a WP:MEATPUPPET but I was here well before Marion/James_Cantor. Notice that neutrality means not being on his side or Cantor's side. Heck I am actively disagreeing with Cantor right now and yet I get this crap. Sheesh.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What crap did you get? I never suggested you're a meat puppet. I think I said you tend to agree with the sexologists' side, which still seems pretty true to me. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you probably interpreted "close allies" above as referring to you. Partly true, but I had in mind primarily ProudAGP, and secondarily WhatamIdoing, and then maybe you after that. Maybe "close allies" was overstating it for WhatamIdoing and you, but it's still not the same as meat puppet. Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As Dicklyon said, neither he nor I edit the main page of this article and have not for several months. I am surprised that someone around here as long as DarlieB did not think to check the page's history. I am not surprised, however, that DarlieB would ask for an inquiry regarding me, yet entirely overlook user:Jokestress who does edit this page and whose involvement in the controversy dwarfs mine (it wasn't me getting mentioned in the NYT). I would be happy to participate in any inquiry that would involve looking into edits from people all sides...If DarlieB's request is sincere rather than self-serving, then she will support me in this.
And, yup, Hfarmer and I are actively disagreeing on something right now...as educated and intelligent people often do while still respecting each other and enjoying their company. You can't have harmony when you all sing the same note.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that if anything could bias me towards Cantor's side is that they don't personaly call me names. --Hfarmer (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been called names hfarmer , a question on your identity, well that's something else. You have made threats of inquiries and I welcome them . Yes Dr Cantor I'm well aware of Andrea's presence as Jokestress and I've openly disagreed with her approach and have been attacked by her several times. We are not all the same as you Bailey and Blanchard seem to believe . This article is totally POV since the opinion rendered as an "expert" in a field that neither cures nor has verifiable proof is little but opinion. Calling someone an expert in that field removes the actual credibility of real doctors and scientists. I don't believe you should even be here . I would love to have all our identities verified but wiki doesn't do that DarlieB (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Spinning the IRB-qualified research question

The beefed-up sourcing that WhatamIdoing has added to the bit about IRB-qualified research is another good example of biased spin in this article. Nothing in that well-sourced sentence is directly connected to Bailey or his book, except by implication. To leave the impression that this official document was in some way connected to Bailey's case, or that it shows the charges were improper, is irresponsible. The only reliable source that I can find for a connection is again the Dreger piece; she invokes that source to absolve Bailey of wrongdoing. But look at the commentaries: shouldn't their alternatives to this view also be mentioned if we're going to mention Dreger's opinion? For example, John. H. Gagnon, author of The Social Organization of Sexuality, says in reaction to Dreger:

Bailey has made the argument that this book was not meant to be a work of science nor did his various contacts with trans-gendered persons in his office or in other public locations rise to the scientific level which required formal consent forms or IRB approval. My reading of Dreger suggests to me that she agrees with Bailey. My sense is quite different. To argue that TMWWBQ was not meant to be a book of science appears to be more a result of the conflict about the book than a description of the author’s intentions.

and

for anyone coming from disciplines in which field studies (often called participant observation) are more common and in which IRB approval is usually necessary, an alternative view of Bailey’s activities is surely possible.

and

From the point of view of most IRBs with which I am familiar, Bailey was doing field work and his respondents were research subjects, even though he did not think so at the time.

and

I am not sure how the IRB on the main campus of Northwestern, which is far more familiar with social science research, would have dealt with Dreger’s submission. I know as a matter of personal experience that studies such as hers (including oral histories) have required IRB approval at other universities and have required consent forms. She makes the case that what she has done does not rise to the level of ‘‘scientific research.’’ Here, I believe that she is being disingenuous: hers is a paper published in scientific journal, from an author who has an academic appointment in a medical school, who is a professional historian, who says that her goals are setting the historical record straight. What is this but careful scientific research?

Or perhaps Riki Lane, who says:

As it wasn’t research, he didn’t need IRB oversight. Dreger ends up with an individualist, legalist defence of Bailey from various charges, which obscures the larger ethical questions: Why was a scientist writing so unscientifically about science in a way that portrayed a very marginalized group so negatively? Is it reasonable to slip through regulatory cracks to avoid the need for IRB oversight? Is it reasonable for a scientist to present his or her hunches and biases as if they are supported by rigorous science?

Does anyone object to saying a few words about these alternative viewpoints, and maybe reducing the amount of ink on the tangentially connected IRB decision? Are these people "expert" enough to be reiable sources for an alternative opinion to Dreger's? Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the primary reason that I added those links were because that issue comes up on these talk pages, and I thought that a more find-able location for them might be helpful in the future.

In the bigger picture, the fact that institutions incorrectly (in the view of the government) required IRB approval for oral histories and unstructured conversations with people is exactly why the DHHS issued this clarification. The government does not, and never intended to, consider talking to people a regulated activity. There are still a few institutions that are scared to comply with this directive (see, for example, the more forceful 2004 restatement by the same agencies), but the fact that some institutions are trying lawsuit-proof free speech doesn't make it either necessary or appropriate as a matter of law. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with that. The question is what to say in the article, where your interpretation, and mine, are hardly relevant compared to those of Dreger and the commentaries that connect this stuff to the article topic. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure why not? But don't go overboard. How about something like this?

Rikki lane and X# of others wrote commentaries critical of Dreger. Lane said "As it wasn’t research, he didn’t need IRB oversight. Dreger ends up with an individualist, legalist defence of Bailey from various charges, which obscures the larger ethical questions..." Richard Green and Y others wrote commentaries that were supportive of Dreger "Quote of simmilar length and impact from Green. Say several others wrote commentaires that were only tangentially related to the subject.

This would leave a quote of criticism, and references the number who criticised, a quote of support, and the number who supported, then for completeness mentions commentaries that were not directly about Dreger's paper. That would be both neutral and comprehensive, and concise. Only quoting critical commentaries would likely be none of those.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to pick one, pick the one who is a prof, not the student. Mentioning the number who criticize Dreger is obviously inappropriate OR. There's no need for "completeness", whatever you meant by that; just that an opinion on one side should be balanced by one on the other. As for the sideline on IRB guidelines, I still argue that it's undue WP:SYNTH designed to help Dreger defend Bailey, and hence inappropriate. Does anyone not on Bailey's side edit this article? Dicklyon (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this right...You don't think it is worth mentioning just how many more commentaries were critical (double digits) VS how many were supportive (about 4)? As for your second point. If you mean to not mention the fact that not all of the commentaires were negative that would not be a balanced NPOV writing. How about you just write what you think it should look like and we can discuss it. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I even bother trying to communicate with you. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding IRBs, two published experts have weighed in on the controversy. In Jack Katz's "Toward a Natural History of Ethical Censorship" he reviews cases in which IRBs have been used by those trying to censor research or ideas. About the Bailey case he writes:

"Any ‘hot button’ issue may tempt opponents of a study’s substantive arguments to reach for the IRB as a tool of repression. The targets of critical studies, as distinct from the subjects contacted in gathering data, have increasingly appreciated the leverage value of IRB regulatory authority. When he was chair of the psychology department at Northwestern University,Michael Bailey was attacked by transsexual professors at other universities who were outraged at his argument, in a popular-readership-oriented book, that some candidates for male-to-female sex change operations are aroused sexually by the idea of being a woman (Dreger, forthcoming)."

AU: Jack Katz TI: Toward a Natural History of Ethical Censorship SO: Law & Society Review VL: 41 NO: 4 PG: 797-810 YR: 2007 ON: 1540-5893 PN: 0023-9216 AD: UCLA DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2007.00325.x US: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2007.00325.x

Zachary Schrag is an Assistant Professor of History at George Mason who maintains a blog about IRBs in the social sciences. He has a book under contract with Johns Hopkins Press on this topic, and he has published an article on it as well. He has no evident interest in transsexualism or sexuality. He wrote a blog about the Bailey case:

http://www.institutionalreviewblog.com/2008/06/psychologist-who-would-be-journalist.html

Among key quotations from the blog:

"Of the commentators in the journal who take on the human-subjects angle, most recognize the flimsiness of the human-subjects case against Bailey."

He notes that "only two argue that Bailey's work should have been subject to IRB review." He critiques both of these, noting that Richard Green was focusing on practices before 1981 when the current definition of human subjects research was adopted (and hence his observations were irrelevant). He says of Gagnon: "Gagnon did not read Dreger's article very carefully."

This controversy was important partly because it exemplified the vulnerability of researchers being attacked through the IRBs for unpopular ideas. Obviously, Conway et al. do not believe (or will not admit) that they did this, but it needs to be mentioned that some people (including some experts) believe that they did.ProudAGP (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to re-open this again, but since we do a lot of {{Round in circles}} and I have it handy, the question of whether Bailey's interviews were IRB-qualified is addressed by a reliable source in Wilson, Robin. "Transsexual 'Subjects' Complain About Professor's Research Methods." The Chronicle of Higher Education 25 July 2003, Vol. 49, Issue 46. The text can be found here. (Note that this was published several months before the DHSS formally clarified that the critics of the everything-goes-to-IRB rules were right.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Disingenuous edit?

HFarmer's recent edit was accompanied by summary " I added in Northwestern University Ethicist. Her title and affiliation must remain they are important information. Me and Dick agreed on that" seems to seek approval based on a presumption of my agreement. Of course she needs to be identified as being at the institution as Bailey, but calling her an "Ethicist" is not concistent with her own web pages or degrees, and capitalizing it makes it even worse. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't remember our conversation a week or so ago at WP:NOR/N about this very topic.Darlie B removed Dreger's title and affiliation information. The fact that Dreger and Bailey worked at the same place is important. It cuts both ways having her title and affiliation there does make her sound more authoratative. But it also suggest a possible conflict of interest. As I state it it is just information those two inferences are left up to the reader.

There is also the issue that many of the critics have their long hifalutin titles listed next to their names in this article. It only make sense to do the same for non-critics and proponents of Blanchardian gender theory. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I recall my reaction to ethicist on Dec. 18 very well. Perhaps you forgot. I now notice that I missed your snappy retort there however, where you assert that "The word ethicist is in her job title." If that's so, then it's OK; just be sure to reference a reliable source. Dicklyon (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok so you agreed on Northwestern but not on ethecist. Well Guess this has to go unelss I can find....this "Medical Ethicist Alice Dreger To Deliver C. P. Snow Lecture At Ithaca College". Based on that one could argue that her precise title would be "medical ethecist" but I think ethecist suffices.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So are you admitting that it's not her title? And now you want to call her an ethicist because somebody else's headline-writer did? Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Dreger's official position is "Professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and Bioethics".[4] She is described in the media as "an ethics scholar and patients' rights advocate"[5] and "a historian of medicine"[6]. She self-describes as "a medical humanist, writer, speaker, patient advocate, a Guggenheim Fellow, and a Professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and Bioethics"[7].

(Her PhD, for the curious, is in 'History and Philosophy of Science', making her well-qualified to write a history of a science scandal.)

While I'm open to alternatives, I think that "ethicist" [with a lower-case e, please: Northwestern University Ethicist" makes me think that there's only one] is both a reasonable description and a conveniently short title for this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Chilling effects

The edit summary in this edit [8] are clearly NOT justifiable reasons for including content in Wikipedia, whatever their value in the "real world" may be. I commented the section out because from the material in the source we used, there is little to no value to the material in this article. Perhaps some other reliable source talks about this incident in a matter that makes an appropriate context for including it in this Wikipedia article, but the current source does not. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that sentence does any harm. It is an ackoledgement that the pressure applied to Bailey did have an effect on him. I suppose it could be constured as a play for sympathy.  :-/ In which case it could be called a self serving self published BLP statedment. But then it has been publishen in an RS so it is not that.  :-\ The point in the section entitled academic freedom seem to be to report on the angle of this controversy which is about academic freedom. Can academics say what they think is true and not fear what could be called persecution? I suppose in some ideal world the answer would be yes. But in the real world words have meanings and consequences. In the humanities and human sciences like psychology in particular the subjects of one's research may not appreciate what is said about them. Do they not have the freedom to express that as well?

I have seen that the freedom of Bailey's critics has been throughly expressed. On wikipedia that has gone as far as policy can allow. I see no reason to not have one little sentence of Bailey's actual reation to the personal attacks against him.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Find a source that talks about how this accusation impacts Baileys academic freedom otherwise it is original research on our part and not allowed. Such a connection is certainly not in the source that I hid.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've split this off from the previous section, because it deals with an entirely separate edit. Pen, if you would comment on your choice to hide the "sex allegations" paragraph in the previous section, I think that Dick would appreciate it.

In general, I think that the section on academic freedom is one of the most important in terms of encyclopedic value, as the impact on academic freedom is why this book and the associated scandals matter to anyone that is not directly affected by the specific subject. Consider, for example, the main underlying thrust of Carey's article in The New York Times. Consider, for example, what another sexologist (who thinks Blanchard's notion is entirely wrong) said:

"I have also been on the receiving end of a withering and unfounded personal attack for my professional writing....I do not believe that Bailey, Dreger, or any researcher should be the recipient of the treatment outlined in the article for presenting his or her beliefs, research, opinions, ideas, etc. Although I strongly disagree with Bailey's conclusions about transsexuality and many of his other professional beliefs, he has the absolute right to present them and not suffer the attacks he has." (emphasis in the original)

Fundamentally, if presenting what you believe about transsexuality (or any complex and controversial subject) means that your family will be attacked and that people will try to put you in jail, can any rational person pretend that this will have no chilling effect at all on the free exchange of ideas and knowledge? I remember reading once (I don't remember the source, alas) about concerns that future sexologists would shy away from doing any sort of research on transsexuality because of this scandal.

Chilling effects happen when people self-censor because the personal cost of speaking their beliefs is perceived as too great. I believe that the fact that Bailey had a miserable two years of dealing with the public humiliation of his children, legal claims, colleagues telling him that they couldn't be seen working together (because it would jeopardize their grant funding), and so forth, really is relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The connection between his statement and "academic freedom"/"chilling effects" is pure conjecture on your part. Find a source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that she was quoting John Bancroft there. Why would a statement like the one above be irrelevant? As for what he says being connected to academic freedom. Writing about the right to write what you think is right is the same thing. WP:NOTOR makes the arguement that simple analysis that any reasonably educated person can make is not OR. The quote is about rights. Rights imply a statement about freedom or lack thereof. Stop with the WP:JUSTA pointing at a policy. Any good faith editor could see that statement is all about academic freedom even if the words don't appear in it verbatim. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The blockquote is from Charles Moser. I'd meant to add a link; it's at PMID 18431627. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's no reason that passage should have been removed. It's clearly relevant, given the source. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC) message truncated and portion leading to side discussion moved to new section

The information in the block quote above by a third party analysing the situation and its effects on "academic freedom" is not something I am challenging. What I am challenging is a Wikipedia editor making the connection that Bailey's statement about the "hardest years of his life" and "academic freedom"/"chilling effect" because such analysis constitutes WP:OR and needs to be removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the (entire relevant section of the) cited source to consider the context that the source places that statement in? It follows a long discussion of academic freedom, and is the journalist's transition from considering the abstract notion of academic freedom and chilling effects thereon, into the specific blow-by-blow actions. We are not connecting it to academic freedom; the journalist did that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have - and while there is no denying that Bailey went through many traumatic events, I will stand by my belief that concluding that Bailey's quote from this source to be about "academic freedom" / "chilling effects" requires analysis and interpretation on the part of a Wikipedia editor. I do not reject the use of the quote in the article, but I do object to its current placement on the grounds of WP:SYN. The analysis implied by its current placement in our article is not directly attributable to analysis made in the source.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well what we have at our disposal for cases like this is WP:NOTOR which is not a policy but a essay about the OR policy which states just what is not OR. It states that compiling facts and information is not OR. The quote you are arguing over was in, I believe either or dregers article or the new york times artilce by Benedict Carey. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's on the first page of Carey's NYT article, immediately after Carey outlines the free speech implications. Dreger says that harrassment is bad, McCloskey says that nobody -- well, almost nobody -- did or said anything that couldn't be considered "fair comment on a book and an author", Carey names the publication date, and then the Bailey quote. I don't see how we can pretend that Carey doesn't consider this statement related to academic freedom, but I'm willing to consider moving it to other locations in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Title again

I agree that there's no reason that passage should have been removed. It's clearly relevant, given the source. On the other hand, since neither HFarmer not WhatamIdoing has corrected the "Ethicist" error that I pointed out above, it doesn't seem that there's much interest among editors in getting this article right, just in spinning it in favor of the Northwestern sexologists. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dick that's not an error me and whatamidoing both provided links that show "Ethecist" is in her job title. This one, and this one All I have to do is add those citations to the article. --Hfarmer (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You did show that she has "bioethics" in her job title, after I challenged you enough times, but I had missed that recent addition to this talk page. I still feel that "ethicist" is a term that you've added to inflate her image, and that "professor" would be more appropriate. As to your assertion that here PhD in "history and philosophy of science" makes her qualified to write this kind of "history" that she has done here is absurd. Calling her a historian would be even more misleading than calling her an ethicist. Dicklyon (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When Dick tried selling his opposition to "historian" during our mediated discussion, the number of editors agreeing with him was...zero. Because neither Dick nor I edit this page, I would recommend, Hfarmer, not to waste overly much effort trying to please either one of us.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that under advisement.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected the capitalization error, but perhaps the rest of this conversation could be carried on above, instead of getting it confused here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to her correct full title, since that's at least arguably less biased than your camp's interpretation as "ethicist". I left out "part-time." As for not editing these articles, that agreement has recently been made impossible by Hfarmer, so I pulled out of it, thereby releasing James as well. Dicklyon (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's even more than I would have wanted but if it makes sense to have all of that to you so be it.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Also you mention "part time" The quote from just below her name on that page says "Professor of Clinical Medical Humanities & Bioethics" nor does the word part time appear in the body text of her faculty page. To me the alternative to having dreger's title is to strip all titles from everyone named in this article. Which like not having Dreger's title would inadvertently hide the very suggestive fact that she and Bailey work for the same university.

It's more than I would have wanted, too, but it's less biased than "ethicist". As to the part-time, as I said, I left that out; it was only on her personal blog that she's only a 20% time professor, without benefits. It makes sense to consider what kinds of descriptors to use for people, that accurately reflect their role and relationship to the topic. I don't think the fact that Dreger is expressing ethics opinions is a reason to dignify her as an ethicist; quite the contrary. Professor would have been OK, as Cantor and I had previously agreed, and leaving our her co-affiliation with Bailey could hardly be called a neutral action. Dicklyon (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)