This article was nominated for deletion on 11 December 2020. The result of the discussion was keep and rework. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Irreversible Damage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article Last six months (log scale)
Last 365 days (linear scale)
|
I enjoyed reading, very much, the essay User:GreenMeansGo/Bee About. I don't strenuously object to dropping the large list of quality references that discuss the lack of evidence for and acceptance of ROGD—specifically, the ones that don't also mention Irreversible Damage. I do worry that dropping the refs only hurts the readers, who would otherwise be presented with high-quality sources that are relevant to the claim. We do have a reliable source that connects the book with the claim, so the other sources could be seen as supplements. We could even make this explicit in the ref bundle with something like "for more info on ROGD see: (list of supplementary refs)". I'm interested to know how other editors feel. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 13:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Can we add the following to the Background section? Much of this content has been in the lead for a long time without corresponding content in the body.
The contentious concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which Irreversible Damage endorses, was first proposed in a 2018 paper by Lisa Littman. [1] [2] [3] ROGD is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution and is not backed by credible scientific evidence. [1]
References
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Above in #Lead description I described the issue in detail, and I'd be happy to repeat the arguments and sources here if needed. The issue is pretty straightforward and the activists that came here to trash the author are misrepresenting sources and violating NPOV pretty openly, regardless of what the chat sounds like. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Generalrelative I think you're missing the point of the content dispute. The source you inserted is a self-described blog to support a statement that a theory is not backed by any "credible scientific evidence". The actual statements from the original researcher and medical organizations are more along the lines of "there is not enough evidence to endorse it and it needs further study".
Sources on ROGD
|
---|
Littman's
original article: When the article was revised, the same conclusion reads: The WPATH
statement: The AusPATH
statement: The Bauer
article: |
The statement you re-inserted into the article is someone's misrepresentation of the status of ROGD, published on a blog. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
published on a blogNope. Per WP:SBM, Science-Based Medicine is a generally reliable source, with a credible editorial board and a robust set of editorial guidelines.
The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a medical entity recognized by any major professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD).
The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a diagnosis or health condition recognised by any major professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD).
This putative phenomenon was posited based on survey data from a convenience sample of parents recruited from websites, and may represent the perceptions or experiences of those parents, rather than of adolescents, particularly those who may enter into clinical care.
There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science.In the time since that statement was published, there have been three papers published; the November 2021 paper by Bauer (quoted above), an August 2022 paper by Turban et. al, and a March 2023 paper by Turban et. al. All three have found evidence that runs counter to the ROGD hypothesis. And to my knowledge, to date there have been no researchers independent of Littman who have found any evidence in support of the theory. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 04:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
If sources about the book cover it, then we use the sources covering it in the context of the book.So we're in agreement that the added text about the book, which is cited to references about the book, is good? As I said, we include it
if [...] RS about the bookdo, and the RS cited above do. -sche ( talk) 12:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
How, exactly, are you justifying this revert? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I have a few comments on how the reception section is currently lacking in terms of organization. This is a common feature of reception sections of non-fiction books, so I don't know that I have perfect solutions, but perhaps together we can work out something.
The lead paragraph's tallying up of positive vs negative reviews from different sources does not strike me as particularly useful information, and means that the first paragraph is mostly taken up with a list of publications and reviewer names. Those reviewer names are then restated in full one after the other as their comments are summarized across the following paragraphs, mostly without another reference to the publication they are from. This requires the reader do frequent referencing of that first paragraph to keep in context the publication venue, which if it is important information to include in the first place, is an inelegant way to present it. This structure also creates a readability problem with Wikilinks. Most of the reviewers are wikilinked at their first mention in the lead paragraph, when, I would assume, most readers are going to want to be looking for more information about the reviewer when they are actually engaging with that reviewers comments, which occurs over several paragraphs below. As it currently is written, several of those writers are re-linked when when their comments are presented, but that isn't good linking practice, so it would be preferable to find a different solution.
The paragraphs themselves are not totally clear to me at first glance; they are currently structured around grouping together the positive/mixed/negative reviews but could probably benefit from topic/summary sentences to make that clearer, or could instead be structured around particular comments made in reviews and commentaries. I would be in favour of reorganizing the paragraphs around aspects of the book that have been commented on (the overall argument, the sourcing, the presentation, the metacritique by reviewers of other reviews). That final paragraph, on the controversy around Hall's reviews probably should stay more or less as it is, because it presents a particular publication conversation that is prompted by Hall's review of the book; but given that there is a significant metacommentary within other reviews, perhaps those comments could be integrated or put adjacent to the paragraph on Hall's review.
Also, it is not totally clear to me why the comments from The Economist is presented in a strange way. The magazine including the book in its best books of 2020 should probably be in that lead paragraph if that will continue to be a tally of positive/negative reviews, and the lack of a credited author from The Economist's longer piece (is it an unsigned editorial?) makes the adjacency of the best books and the comments read awkwardly.
This section page has been subject to a degree of edit warring recently, so I wanted to ask for comments before I made some of these changes. Thank you for reading. Handpigdad ( talk) 01:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The author has a Wikipedia page, which should be linked to in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.120.202 ( talk) 06:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 December 2020. The result of the discussion was keep and rework. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Irreversible Damage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article Last six months (log scale)
Last 365 days (linear scale)
|
I enjoyed reading, very much, the essay User:GreenMeansGo/Bee About. I don't strenuously object to dropping the large list of quality references that discuss the lack of evidence for and acceptance of ROGD—specifically, the ones that don't also mention Irreversible Damage. I do worry that dropping the refs only hurts the readers, who would otherwise be presented with high-quality sources that are relevant to the claim. We do have a reliable source that connects the book with the claim, so the other sources could be seen as supplements. We could even make this explicit in the ref bundle with something like "for more info on ROGD see: (list of supplementary refs)". I'm interested to know how other editors feel. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 13:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Can we add the following to the Background section? Much of this content has been in the lead for a long time without corresponding content in the body.
The contentious concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which Irreversible Damage endorses, was first proposed in a 2018 paper by Lisa Littman. [1] [2] [3] ROGD is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution and is not backed by credible scientific evidence. [1]
References
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Above in #Lead description I described the issue in detail, and I'd be happy to repeat the arguments and sources here if needed. The issue is pretty straightforward and the activists that came here to trash the author are misrepresenting sources and violating NPOV pretty openly, regardless of what the chat sounds like. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Generalrelative I think you're missing the point of the content dispute. The source you inserted is a self-described blog to support a statement that a theory is not backed by any "credible scientific evidence". The actual statements from the original researcher and medical organizations are more along the lines of "there is not enough evidence to endorse it and it needs further study".
Sources on ROGD
|
---|
Littman's
original article: When the article was revised, the same conclusion reads: The WPATH
statement: The AusPATH
statement: The Bauer
article: |
The statement you re-inserted into the article is someone's misrepresentation of the status of ROGD, published on a blog. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
published on a blogNope. Per WP:SBM, Science-Based Medicine is a generally reliable source, with a credible editorial board and a robust set of editorial guidelines.
The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a medical entity recognized by any major professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD).
The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a diagnosis or health condition recognised by any major professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD).
This putative phenomenon was posited based on survey data from a convenience sample of parents recruited from websites, and may represent the perceptions or experiences of those parents, rather than of adolescents, particularly those who may enter into clinical care.
There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science.In the time since that statement was published, there have been three papers published; the November 2021 paper by Bauer (quoted above), an August 2022 paper by Turban et. al, and a March 2023 paper by Turban et. al. All three have found evidence that runs counter to the ROGD hypothesis. And to my knowledge, to date there have been no researchers independent of Littman who have found any evidence in support of the theory. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 04:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
If sources about the book cover it, then we use the sources covering it in the context of the book.So we're in agreement that the added text about the book, which is cited to references about the book, is good? As I said, we include it
if [...] RS about the bookdo, and the RS cited above do. -sche ( talk) 12:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
How, exactly, are you justifying this revert? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I have a few comments on how the reception section is currently lacking in terms of organization. This is a common feature of reception sections of non-fiction books, so I don't know that I have perfect solutions, but perhaps together we can work out something.
The lead paragraph's tallying up of positive vs negative reviews from different sources does not strike me as particularly useful information, and means that the first paragraph is mostly taken up with a list of publications and reviewer names. Those reviewer names are then restated in full one after the other as their comments are summarized across the following paragraphs, mostly without another reference to the publication they are from. This requires the reader do frequent referencing of that first paragraph to keep in context the publication venue, which if it is important information to include in the first place, is an inelegant way to present it. This structure also creates a readability problem with Wikilinks. Most of the reviewers are wikilinked at their first mention in the lead paragraph, when, I would assume, most readers are going to want to be looking for more information about the reviewer when they are actually engaging with that reviewers comments, which occurs over several paragraphs below. As it currently is written, several of those writers are re-linked when when their comments are presented, but that isn't good linking practice, so it would be preferable to find a different solution.
The paragraphs themselves are not totally clear to me at first glance; they are currently structured around grouping together the positive/mixed/negative reviews but could probably benefit from topic/summary sentences to make that clearer, or could instead be structured around particular comments made in reviews and commentaries. I would be in favour of reorganizing the paragraphs around aspects of the book that have been commented on (the overall argument, the sourcing, the presentation, the metacritique by reviewers of other reviews). That final paragraph, on the controversy around Hall's reviews probably should stay more or less as it is, because it presents a particular publication conversation that is prompted by Hall's review of the book; but given that there is a significant metacommentary within other reviews, perhaps those comments could be integrated or put adjacent to the paragraph on Hall's review.
Also, it is not totally clear to me why the comments from The Economist is presented in a strange way. The magazine including the book in its best books of 2020 should probably be in that lead paragraph if that will continue to be a tally of positive/negative reviews, and the lack of a credited author from The Economist's longer piece (is it an unsigned editorial?) makes the adjacency of the best books and the comments read awkwardly.
This section page has been subject to a degree of edit warring recently, so I wanted to ask for comments before I made some of these changes. Thank you for reading. Handpigdad ( talk) 01:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The author has a Wikipedia page, which should be linked to in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.120.202 ( talk) 06:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)