This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
J. Michael Bailey 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:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | J. Michael Bailey was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
I have added a subsection on ROGD following the suggestion. Hist9600 reverted me here. According to the guidelines on biographies of living persons, at WP:BLPSPS: it states "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". Michael wrote the article on 4thwavenow, therefore it can be used. I have not used it as WP:Wikivoice. Unherd article also follows a similar principle. Zenomonoz ( talk) 01:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Second comment: also according to WP:SELFSOURCE, "questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met" ? Zenomonoz ( talk) 02:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Third comment: also according to WP:QUESTIONABLE "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties". These are not claims about third parties, rather, they are from the horses mouth. Also WP:RSOPINION suggests they are fine for getting the opinion on a biographical Wikipedia page. Zenomonoz ( talk) 02:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.As Sideswipe has pointed out, the point of contention here is not verifiability but rather WP:DUE, which is part of our core policy of WP:NPOV. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article, alongside the lack of consensus for or against its reliability (see RSP entry) I would not consider the National Review article to contribute towards due weight here. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
but we do not need to take into account what Bailey said on Twitter (it’s irrelevant)In most cases you would be right. However given that Bailey has expressed that he wants to
Streisand this thingwith respect to the retraction, and the well documented amplification effect adding content to a Wikipedia article, we need to be very careful that content we add here constitutes due weight. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Update on feedback: please refer to the discussion on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#J. Michael Bailey. It seems the consensus is to add reference to the retraction, including support from long standing editors and mods who expressed very similar opinions to my own. Zenomonoz ( talk) 05:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Just a comment here for Hist9600 and Sideswipe9th as you both made comments here suggesting the retraction was not notable (not doing this to be annoying, rather to help with editing going forward). Per Mathglot, this is a misunderstanding of notability. WP:Notability applies to the topic of an article, but not to the article's content. The content of an article has to be verifiable, but it does not have to be notable. Hope this clears this up and helps with any editing going forward. Zenomonoz ( talk) 10:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi again @ Generalrelative, I agree parts of the article can be trimmed down and focus on secondary sources. However, a lot of his research already covered is also covered in secondary sources. The The Man Who Would Be Queen would qualify as a secondary source when talking about Bailey's research (it summarises his research in the context of other research, and its limitations). It is acceptable to include the primary source to the study alongside the secondary source as it allows the reader to verify it. Zenomonoz ( talk) 01:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
attackedto
criticized), but I added a crucial bit of information highlighted in the cited SECONDARY source:
Critics argued that the paper disregarded countervailing evidence and was based upon an unrepresentative sample of participants.
I propose that we restore this version and then work collaboratively to improve from there on a point-by-point basis. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
This edit by Zenomonoz is good. I'll amend my proposal to revert and and then re-include that sentence since it is now adequately sourced. I'm also happy to place the Research section above the section discussing the book. My reason for moving discussion of the book to the top had as much to do with chronology (it came out before any of the research discussed in the Research section once I'd trimmed it) as anything else. But now that point is moot. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
"His work has attracted numerous controversies"in the opening per WP:CRITS. The problem is, his book (and opinions) have attracted most of the controversy. Two (?) studies, one on bisexuals (which he did concede was flawed, and followed up) and the ROGD paper have certainly attracted controversy, but to suggest "his work attracted numerous controversies" seems overstated for two out of 242 publications. The opening already focuses on the controversy surrounding TMWWBQ. While the present article weighs heavy on controversy, that is because it lacks reference to secondary sources which focus on non-controversial research/opinions, e.g. writing to the president of Nigeria against LGBT discrimination. The article needs to weigh less heavily on the controversy (which yes also includes trimming TMWWBQ section) Zenomonoz ( talk) 00:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
has attracted numerous controversiesmay well be a fair (using speculative tense here because I don't know what this article will look like after we're finished trimming) summary of the article's body.
I've implemented what I understand to be the emerging consensus here. If I've gotten anything wrong, let's discuss. And if additional secondary sources are forthcoming I'd be happy to see more discussion of Bailey's research re-added. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Zenomonoz, we may need to discuss this edit, where you removed the sentence:
Critics argued that the paper disregarded countervailing evidence and was based upon an unrepresentative sample of participants.
This statement is well sourced, as discussed above. See in particular where this source states:
Soon after publication, the paper attracted criticism that its method of gathering study participants was biased, and that the authors ignored information that didn't support the theory of ROGD.
In your edit summary, you said This part is irrelevant to the retraction. it's giving the false impression that the paper was retracted due to being offensive. Also, the 'representativeness' of the paper is very much irrelevant here as many papers on transgender people are obviously not representative due to the small population.
If it were irrelevant, why would both of the cited sources mention it? Further, nothing here said anything about the study being "offensive". The critique was methodological. And there are certainly enough transgender people for a representative study to be conducted. This one was critiqued for failing to be representative (and for disregarding countervailing evidence). Again, a methodological critique. Happy to discuss.
Generalrelative (
talk)
22:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
There are a number of issues with these types of sources, and I'm concerned about BLP's becoming collections of what are effectively primary sources, or sources that are not sufficiently independent from the article subject. We have seen before that BLP's for psychologists, psychiatrists, sexologists, etc., may become littered with primary medical sources, and it takes a lot of work to clean this up after the fact. I'm not against the use of sources like this, but I think they should be accompanied by an independent secondary reliable source that establishes the relevance to the Wikipedia article subject.
While a review study may be a secondary source with regard to the study of a certain subject (e.g. sexual orientation), is it a primary or secondary source with regard to the person's career? The review study is not about Bailey himself. It was about sexual orientation, and Bailey was one of the authors. If the subject of this Wikipedia article was sexual orientation, then I think this may be an independent secondary reliable source on the subject of sexual orientation. But since the source is primarily about sexual orientation, and the subject of this Wikipedia article is one of the authors of the review study, I don't see how this could be considered a secondary reliable source on the matter of Bailey's career.
I think it would make more sense to base the section on Bailey's career on what independent secondary and tertiary reliable sources say about the work that he has done that is significant, and this is a better way to determine what is WP:DUE. For example, a news article that mentions noteworthy studies done by Bailey, and ties them to Bailey and his career, might be an independent secondary reliable source about Bailey's career. Per WP:PST, whether a source is WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY is specific to exactly how the source is being used. Hist9600 ( talk) 01:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I reverted
this removal of content by Hist9600. Independence is a rule ensuring content remain verifiable. Bailey and other researchers are analysing the results of others work in a meta analysis. However, even per
WP:NIS: Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. For example, "Organization X said 10,000 people showed up to protest" is OK when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest" is not.
This is for the content of the article (not the notability of the article itself) and the paragraph clearly attributes this to Bailey.
Zenomonoz (
talk)
02:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
“If 70% of the sentences in an article about Alice Expertcome from Alice's own writing, or Alice's employer's website, then the article is based upon non-independent sources. On the other hand, if 70% of the content in that article comes from magazine articles written by journalists, then the article is based upon independent sources”Zenomonoz ( talk) 02:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.Note that in this example, they are talking about a source being alternately either a secondary source, or a primary source, depending on the context. But some relevance to the author also needs to be established in the first place. The source is not about Bailey himself. He is merely one of its authors. It would be useful as a secondary medical source about the subject it is about (i.e. sexual orientation), but it would not qualify as a secondary reliable source about the careers of its authors. Hist9600 ( talk) 02:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I have gone an added an independent and secondary source. If other users would still like to weigh in on the use of Bailey's work as a source, feel free. Zenomonoz ( talk) 03:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves.But this source is not what the author has published about himself. It is what the author has published about another topic (i.e. sexual orientation). Hist9600 ( talk) 17:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
"this source is not what the author has published about himself. It is what the author has published about another topic (i.e. sexual orientation)"– I don't follow? Your edits to Kenneth Zucker includes quotes from from his publications on "another topic" (i.e. gender dysphoria), not himself. That's how articles about academics work. Zenomonoz ( talk) 00:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.Whether a quote is used from someone or not is immaterial, and for a WP:BLP, the type of source is important and should be reviewed. If there are no independent secondary or tertiary reliable sources that say something, then it's questionable whether it should be included in an encyclopedia article.
"this source is not what the author has published about himself. It is what the author has published about another topic (i.e. sexual orientation)"– which would lead you to the conclusion that no wikipedia page can include any researchers opinions/view on any topic because it is "about another topic" rather than the author. We don't remove the oedipus complex from Sigmund Freud's article because it is "what the author has published about another topic". Zenomonoz ( talk) 01:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
We don't remove the oedipus complex from Sigmund Freud's article...And why would it need to be removed, since there are obviously high quality secondary and tertiary reliable sources that can establish its relevance to Freud? That is what this is about. It's about sourcing for a WP:BLP. Hist9600 ( talk) 01:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
"this source is not what the author has published about himself. It is what the author has published about another topic (i.e. sexual orientation)""is imprecise, and from your response, you clearly do believe that pages can include things authors write about another topic (not themselves), provided they are covered by others in independent secondary or tertiary sources. If you had more clearly written that it would've been much easier to understand. Can you see how the sentence is quite confusing without proper clarification? And regardless, Wikipedia:Based upon and WP:NIS would suggest that not every piece of content needs to be completely independent. Zenomonoz ( talk) 04:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
J. Michael Bailey 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:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | J. Michael Bailey was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
I have added a subsection on ROGD following the suggestion. Hist9600 reverted me here. According to the guidelines on biographies of living persons, at WP:BLPSPS: it states "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". Michael wrote the article on 4thwavenow, therefore it can be used. I have not used it as WP:Wikivoice. Unherd article also follows a similar principle. Zenomonoz ( talk) 01:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Second comment: also according to WP:SELFSOURCE, "questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met" ? Zenomonoz ( talk) 02:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Third comment: also according to WP:QUESTIONABLE "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties". These are not claims about third parties, rather, they are from the horses mouth. Also WP:RSOPINION suggests they are fine for getting the opinion on a biographical Wikipedia page. Zenomonoz ( talk) 02:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.As Sideswipe has pointed out, the point of contention here is not verifiability but rather WP:DUE, which is part of our core policy of WP:NPOV. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article, alongside the lack of consensus for or against its reliability (see RSP entry) I would not consider the National Review article to contribute towards due weight here. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
but we do not need to take into account what Bailey said on Twitter (it’s irrelevant)In most cases you would be right. However given that Bailey has expressed that he wants to
Streisand this thingwith respect to the retraction, and the well documented amplification effect adding content to a Wikipedia article, we need to be very careful that content we add here constitutes due weight. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Update on feedback: please refer to the discussion on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#J. Michael Bailey. It seems the consensus is to add reference to the retraction, including support from long standing editors and mods who expressed very similar opinions to my own. Zenomonoz ( talk) 05:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Just a comment here for Hist9600 and Sideswipe9th as you both made comments here suggesting the retraction was not notable (not doing this to be annoying, rather to help with editing going forward). Per Mathglot, this is a misunderstanding of notability. WP:Notability applies to the topic of an article, but not to the article's content. The content of an article has to be verifiable, but it does not have to be notable. Hope this clears this up and helps with any editing going forward. Zenomonoz ( talk) 10:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi again @ Generalrelative, I agree parts of the article can be trimmed down and focus on secondary sources. However, a lot of his research already covered is also covered in secondary sources. The The Man Who Would Be Queen would qualify as a secondary source when talking about Bailey's research (it summarises his research in the context of other research, and its limitations). It is acceptable to include the primary source to the study alongside the secondary source as it allows the reader to verify it. Zenomonoz ( talk) 01:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
attackedto
criticized), but I added a crucial bit of information highlighted in the cited SECONDARY source:
Critics argued that the paper disregarded countervailing evidence and was based upon an unrepresentative sample of participants.
I propose that we restore this version and then work collaboratively to improve from there on a point-by-point basis. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
This edit by Zenomonoz is good. I'll amend my proposal to revert and and then re-include that sentence since it is now adequately sourced. I'm also happy to place the Research section above the section discussing the book. My reason for moving discussion of the book to the top had as much to do with chronology (it came out before any of the research discussed in the Research section once I'd trimmed it) as anything else. But now that point is moot. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
"His work has attracted numerous controversies"in the opening per WP:CRITS. The problem is, his book (and opinions) have attracted most of the controversy. Two (?) studies, one on bisexuals (which he did concede was flawed, and followed up) and the ROGD paper have certainly attracted controversy, but to suggest "his work attracted numerous controversies" seems overstated for two out of 242 publications. The opening already focuses on the controversy surrounding TMWWBQ. While the present article weighs heavy on controversy, that is because it lacks reference to secondary sources which focus on non-controversial research/opinions, e.g. writing to the president of Nigeria against LGBT discrimination. The article needs to weigh less heavily on the controversy (which yes also includes trimming TMWWBQ section) Zenomonoz ( talk) 00:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
has attracted numerous controversiesmay well be a fair (using speculative tense here because I don't know what this article will look like after we're finished trimming) summary of the article's body.
I've implemented what I understand to be the emerging consensus here. If I've gotten anything wrong, let's discuss. And if additional secondary sources are forthcoming I'd be happy to see more discussion of Bailey's research re-added. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Zenomonoz, we may need to discuss this edit, where you removed the sentence:
Critics argued that the paper disregarded countervailing evidence and was based upon an unrepresentative sample of participants.
This statement is well sourced, as discussed above. See in particular where this source states:
Soon after publication, the paper attracted criticism that its method of gathering study participants was biased, and that the authors ignored information that didn't support the theory of ROGD.
In your edit summary, you said This part is irrelevant to the retraction. it's giving the false impression that the paper was retracted due to being offensive. Also, the 'representativeness' of the paper is very much irrelevant here as many papers on transgender people are obviously not representative due to the small population.
If it were irrelevant, why would both of the cited sources mention it? Further, nothing here said anything about the study being "offensive". The critique was methodological. And there are certainly enough transgender people for a representative study to be conducted. This one was critiqued for failing to be representative (and for disregarding countervailing evidence). Again, a methodological critique. Happy to discuss.
Generalrelative (
talk)
22:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
There are a number of issues with these types of sources, and I'm concerned about BLP's becoming collections of what are effectively primary sources, or sources that are not sufficiently independent from the article subject. We have seen before that BLP's for psychologists, psychiatrists, sexologists, etc., may become littered with primary medical sources, and it takes a lot of work to clean this up after the fact. I'm not against the use of sources like this, but I think they should be accompanied by an independent secondary reliable source that establishes the relevance to the Wikipedia article subject.
While a review study may be a secondary source with regard to the study of a certain subject (e.g. sexual orientation), is it a primary or secondary source with regard to the person's career? The review study is not about Bailey himself. It was about sexual orientation, and Bailey was one of the authors. If the subject of this Wikipedia article was sexual orientation, then I think this may be an independent secondary reliable source on the subject of sexual orientation. But since the source is primarily about sexual orientation, and the subject of this Wikipedia article is one of the authors of the review study, I don't see how this could be considered a secondary reliable source on the matter of Bailey's career.
I think it would make more sense to base the section on Bailey's career on what independent secondary and tertiary reliable sources say about the work that he has done that is significant, and this is a better way to determine what is WP:DUE. For example, a news article that mentions noteworthy studies done by Bailey, and ties them to Bailey and his career, might be an independent secondary reliable source about Bailey's career. Per WP:PST, whether a source is WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY is specific to exactly how the source is being used. Hist9600 ( talk) 01:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I reverted
this removal of content by Hist9600. Independence is a rule ensuring content remain verifiable. Bailey and other researchers are analysing the results of others work in a meta analysis. However, even per
WP:NIS: Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. For example, "Organization X said 10,000 people showed up to protest" is OK when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest" is not.
This is for the content of the article (not the notability of the article itself) and the paragraph clearly attributes this to Bailey.
Zenomonoz (
talk)
02:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
“If 70% of the sentences in an article about Alice Expertcome from Alice's own writing, or Alice's employer's website, then the article is based upon non-independent sources. On the other hand, if 70% of the content in that article comes from magazine articles written by journalists, then the article is based upon independent sources”Zenomonoz ( talk) 02:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.Note that in this example, they are talking about a source being alternately either a secondary source, or a primary source, depending on the context. But some relevance to the author also needs to be established in the first place. The source is not about Bailey himself. He is merely one of its authors. It would be useful as a secondary medical source about the subject it is about (i.e. sexual orientation), but it would not qualify as a secondary reliable source about the careers of its authors. Hist9600 ( talk) 02:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I have gone an added an independent and secondary source. If other users would still like to weigh in on the use of Bailey's work as a source, feel free. Zenomonoz ( talk) 03:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves.But this source is not what the author has published about himself. It is what the author has published about another topic (i.e. sexual orientation). Hist9600 ( talk) 17:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
"this source is not what the author has published about himself. It is what the author has published about another topic (i.e. sexual orientation)"– I don't follow? Your edits to Kenneth Zucker includes quotes from from his publications on "another topic" (i.e. gender dysphoria), not himself. That's how articles about academics work. Zenomonoz ( talk) 00:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.Whether a quote is used from someone or not is immaterial, and for a WP:BLP, the type of source is important and should be reviewed. If there are no independent secondary or tertiary reliable sources that say something, then it's questionable whether it should be included in an encyclopedia article.
"this source is not what the author has published about himself. It is what the author has published about another topic (i.e. sexual orientation)"– which would lead you to the conclusion that no wikipedia page can include any researchers opinions/view on any topic because it is "about another topic" rather than the author. We don't remove the oedipus complex from Sigmund Freud's article because it is "what the author has published about another topic". Zenomonoz ( talk) 01:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
We don't remove the oedipus complex from Sigmund Freud's article...And why would it need to be removed, since there are obviously high quality secondary and tertiary reliable sources that can establish its relevance to Freud? That is what this is about. It's about sourcing for a WP:BLP. Hist9600 ( talk) 01:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
"this source is not what the author has published about himself. It is what the author has published about another topic (i.e. sexual orientation)""is imprecise, and from your response, you clearly do believe that pages can include things authors write about another topic (not themselves), provided they are covered by others in independent secondary or tertiary sources. If you had more clearly written that it would've been much easier to understand. Can you see how the sentence is quite confusing without proper clarification? And regardless, Wikipedia:Based upon and WP:NIS would suggest that not every piece of content needs to be completely independent. Zenomonoz ( talk) 04:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)