![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have not checked this page in a while--that won't happen again--and I am greatly disturbed by the changes that have occurred, primarily those initiated (without any discussion) by Nogladfeline. The most important problem is the whitewashing of the fact that there is great controversy surrounding Conway's transgender activism, and especially her role in the Bailey book controversy. Whether or not one agrees with Conway--and I don't--it is indisputable that she has been accused in highly reliable sources of very bad behavior (lying to destroy someone's career). Just as on J. Michael Bailey's page there is a presentation of both sides, acknowledging controversy, there should be here too. It's only fair, and also, more importantly for Wikipedia, it's only accurate. And thus I've added the mildest possible acknowledgement of this affair. I will be lobbying soon for more detailed coverage of this controversy. It is certainly the most important thing she has done in decades.
The idea that Conway was truly "stealth" for years is ludicrous. I have met her, and she's among the most masculine transsexuals I've ever met. It would take a clueless observer, indeed, to miss this. We are going on Conway's word, alone, that she was "in stealth." (I have met two people who knew her back then, and both confirm that she was fooling herself.) Obviously, we can't make changes based on anonymous sources, but it would be better to acknowledge that Conway thinks she was in stealth, rather than assert that she actually was in stealth.
"They enjoy sharing many interests and pastimes"...Please!!!! That kind of crap doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It belongs on Conway's own vanity site. ProudAGP ( talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not find Xmoogle's comments above productive; I recommend sticking to specific edits and text in order to improve it instead of predicting what might be said and what might be assumed. I agree that "interests and pastimes" is inappropriate, and I personally agree that the page currently fails to include information in RS's about Conway's controversial role in TMWWBQ. Moreover, I agree that slang such as "in stealth" should be replaced with a more professional description of whatever the relevant RS says...although I am not aware of any RS that says such a thing without merely reflecting Conway's own comments. (Claims on Conway's own website would, however, certainly justify statements such as "she describes..." etc.) Incidentally, although the page uses "activist" and its synonyms several times, there does not appear to be any justication for that term either...there is no mention of groups in which she was elected to office nor mainstream news outlets that mention any instances of activism. (Media mentions all appear to pertain to computer science or the aforementioned controversy). Indeed, none of claims about activism have any sourcing at all.
— James Cantor (
talk) 14:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at
J. Michael Bailey. There is an entire section on the controversy, detailing accusastions, etc. Although I do not necessarily believe a section is needed here (although it might be), the brevity of what is here is indefensible. Conway stands accused in good sources of orchestrating false charges against a scholar in order to ruin him because she didn't like what he had to say. It is infuriating (but predictable) that several people here (especially, Dicklyon, Jokestress, Nogladfeline, and Andrea Parton) believe that there should be no mention (except "in passing") of her role in the controversy. How is that fair? How is it accurate that the controversy be linked strongly to Bailey but barely to Conway? It is so infuriating, in fact, that I am hereby initiating an adequate expansion of the relevant paragraph in the current article. Specifically, the article should include the information (citing reliable sources) that Dreger found that Conway was the instigator of a suite of accusations against Bailey and that these accusations were false. Dicklyon, every time this has happened in the past, you have run to administrators to complain. (You have also broken your agreement to stay off of WP pages dealing with this controversy.) Please let me know if you intend to do that now, so we can involve them from the getgo. We can certainly begin the discussion here. One thing that must be addressed up front is Dicklyon's false insistence that Alice Dreger's important article cannot be used because Dreger is "a principal." The fact is that Conway made Dreger a principal because Dreger was writing the article, and in any case, it's irrelevant to WP policy, provided that the source is reliable, and it is, highly. We can, and should, obviously link to Conway's pages telling her side of the story, and that provides all the balance that's needed. Knowing Jokestress' penchant for inaccurate reporting, I checked her assertion that Conway is mostly in the New York Times for computers and her theatrical efforts. I did indeed find two articles primarily about Carver Mead that mentioned their collaboration (once per article) but no mention of her plays. In any case, no one is suggesting that the controversy receive the attention that Conway's computer career gets. But it could be a solid paragraph, with more specific information, and still be proportional. One alternative, of course, is that Bailey's page receive less attention to the controversy than it currently does. Discuss. (Perhaps someone will also explain to me why Conway and James spent so much time, effort, and computer ink on their campaign against Bailey and now seem to be so ashamed of those efforts.)
ProudAGP (
talk) 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Dicklyon, on this page you are clearly a WP:SPA, because your every edit works to diminish any negative information about Conway. In the past you have removed information that is both notable and true, namely accusations that she orchestrated a campaign of lies against Bailey and his book. You have no evident expertise regarding the controversial material. And as for your breaking of your and James Cantor's agreement, all you need do is look below. He writes: "For reference, here is the agreement that Dicklyon and I made with each other not to edit the controversy section of the Conway page [1], but which Dicklyon has declared he will simply violate as he sees fit." Several other complaints by James Cantor about you in this regard too. ProudAGP ( talk) 19:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Per the sourcing discussion above, I took another look at what the article says, and at what the cited sources say. In particular, here:
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)The idea of a "controversial campaign" is inherent in Dreger. But she never says the campaign is against Bailey (where she mentions an "anti-Bailey campaign", she is not saying there was one, but was referring to a question about an alleged one). Dreger says that Conway "sent me a reply encouraging me to support her campaign against the book." She also reports a private email about "the campaign of a university professor to relegate a book to a kind of Orwellian non-history," where again the campaign is against the book, not the person.
Carey details Conway's involvement, but doesn't make her a campaigner against Bailey: "But by the end of 2003, the controversy had a life of its own on the Internet. Dr. Conway, the computer scientist, kept a running chronicle of the accusations against Dr. Bailey on her Web site."
So this statement seems to accuse Conway of a "bad thing" for which there's no reliable source. Supporting it by a novel synthesis of sources is not a viable alternative. Therefore, it's a WP:BLP violation. I expect y'all to fix it. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This page documents the onset of the trans community's investigation into the publication of J. Michael Bailey's book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, by the National Academy Press.
It all began when Lynn received a message alerting her to the publication of Bailey's book, on 4-10-03. Immediately realizing the seriousness of the situation, Lynn alerted her friend Andrea James (webmistress of the widely-read TS RoadMap) about the book, and they began digging into what had happened.
Within a few days (on 4-12-03), Lynn began posting information about the book on a new page in her website (that page became the "Bailey Investigation website) and alerted Andrea and their mutual friend Becky Allison. The next day (4-13-03) Andrea posted a review and other information about the book (that new page later scaled up to become the BBL Clearinghouse website). Meantime, Becky Allison began posting information about the book into her Blog.
Based on what they had all learned so far, Lynn alerted a wider circle of friends on 4-18-03 about the book, and Becky posted a review of the book that she'd sent to Amazon.com that day. These alerts and the reviews by Andrea and Becky triggered a wave of follow-on negative reviews by many prominent trans women and men ( more).
Now realizing the true gravity of the situation, Lynn began spreading the alert more widely in messages to trans advocacy groups ( such as in this message to GLAAD) on 4-21-03. Responding to those alerts, Christine Burns at Press for Change (PFC) in the UK then spread the alert worldwide by posting it in the widely read "PFC News", on 4-22-03 ( more)
Almost immediately a widespread collaborative internet-based movement formed to investigate and figure out what had happened to cause this book to be published, and to investigate in depth the "science" and "scientists" behind the book.
The very following day (on 4-23-03), we learned from Prof. Joan Roughgarden that Bailey had promoted his book while mocking gay men and transsexual women in a psychology department lecture at Stanford University.
Not long after that (on 5-04-03), Bailey's research subject Anjelica Kieltyka e-mailed Lynn and began telling her story of how Mr. Bailey exploited her and the young trans women she was mentoring in Chicago - using them as unwitting research subjects without their knowledge - and then publishing intimate details about their sex lives in his book without their permission.
As the full gravity of the situation sunk in even more deeply, including awareness that a serious exploitation of research subjects underlay the book, prominent trans women began openly alerting the National Academies: Joan Roughgarden wrote an open letter to the Presidents of the National Academies on 5-05-03, followed by Christine Burns' writing one to the Academies leaders on 5-06-03 Those letters were followed by many many more to the Academies leaders, from trans people all around the world.
And thus the Bailey investigation was launched, and was on its way.
Since I don't edit this section, someone else needs to remove the WP:BLP violation, the assertion that she was involved in a "campaign against J. Michael Bailey." The campaign was clearly about the book; none of the sources support saying that she was in a campaign against Bailey (of course, it is easy to see why many interpret it that way, but that's not enough for putting accusatory info into her bio). Dicklyon ( talk) 02:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
If this is the section that I had agreed with User:James Cantor to not edit, then that at-will agreement is cancelled herewith. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
HFarmer has added a bunch of sentences on Conway's involvement in the Bailey investigation, most of which is correct, but has been synthesized and spun from primary sources, when there are reliable secondary sources (the Carey NYT article) that give a still biased but somewhat more careful and balanced view of it. In particular, H added a long quotation that I could find not basis for in the cited sources, and left an ambiguous sentence about who filed what complaints.
If there's a consensus that more needs to be said in this section, let's have someone less wierd and biased write it, OK? Dicklyon ( talk) 17:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Without having a strong opinion either way about the inclusion of this level of detail, I have moved all the external links into refs. Wikipedia guidelines do not allow this sort of clickable link for inline refs. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I fixed it without reverting this time. That is, I left all the stuff that's sourced to Conway's site, and all the rest that Hfamer wanted in there, but made minor edits to make the material more consistent with the cited sources, and to use better sources when I was able to. If there is anything I didn't get quite right, please do fix it better. Or feel free to remove some of the excess detail sourced to primary sources that now dominates that section that we had been trying to keep short. But no spin, or stuff not supported by the cited sources, please. Dicklyon ( talk) 08:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Although an analogy to war can be apt, it does not change the WP rules, nor Dicklyon's repeated violation of them in this and other pages. Individuals are ultimately responsible for their war-crimes, but in WP and unlike war, the actors are held accountable during rather than after the conflict. You have every right to disagree with my belief that Dicklyon has crossed all reasonable lines and that all reasonable efforts to resolve the problem have been exhausted. However, your disagreement should be based on WP rules, not an analogy, however apt the analogy's other aspects might be.
— James Cantor (
talk) 16:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
James, if you can convince Hfarmer to cooperate, avoid WP:SYNTH, and rigorously respect WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP, then we can reset to before her contentious and inaccurate BLP-violating edits and resume a truce. What do you think? Alternatively, if you think any of my recent edits have moved the article in a bad direction, as opposed to simply correcting her errors, please let's talk about that, and maybe we can move forward without the former agreement. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The problems and warring over the trans-related articles have been going on for a very long time, and the pages themselves remain largely an embarrassment to WP. Despite that Dicklyon calls it a peace offering, there is no reason for me or anyone else to trust that he would not again withdraw from this or any other voluntary agreement when it suits him to do so.
WP:COI suggests that editors listen to the good-faith recommendations of uninvolved editors, and (sans user:Jokestress and me) all such editors have noted problems with Dicklyon's edits here and elsewhere. I am of the opinion that the topic ban he is under for another topic be expanded to include this one. Although is not clear to me whether Hfarmer meant it sincerely, I would indeed support her idea to send the whole big ball to ArbCom.
— James Cantor (
talk) 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The added material certainly is useful in increasing accuracy concerning Conway's notability during the past few years. However, there is one persisting deficiency, and that is that it doesn't say that Dreger found that Conway made false accusations about Bailey, who was "essentially blameless." This is obviously relevant and important to include both for accuracy and fairness. This page need not and should not take a position over whether Conway is right or Dreger is right, but it should definitely be explicit that Dreger said that Conway's campaign took liberties with the truth. For reliable sources and quotations:
I could go on. But don't need to. ProudAGP ( talk) 19:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
For reasons I have already given, which have not been convincingly refuted, this paragraph needs more detail about the specific assertions that Dreger made in her article and that were covered by the New York Times. Below is the slight revision of the current paragraph I propose:
She has been a prominent critic of the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory of male-to-female transsexualism, objecting to the hypothesis that all transsexual women are motivated either by feminine homosexuality or autogynephilia. [1] She was also a key person in the controversial campaign against J. Michael Bailey's controversial book The Man Who Would Be Queen. [2] [3] Northwestern University professor Alice Dreger published a peer-reviewed article about the controversy that concluded that the campaign against Bailey was an attempt to "ruin" Bailey by making various false accusations against him. [1] Conway organized the investigation after receiving a message [4] alerting her to the publication of Bailey's book. Conway alerted her friend Andrea James, [5] and they “began digging into what had happened”. [2] Then she posted [6] information about the book on a page that became the "Bailey Investigation website." [2] Conway spread the word further [7] and many negative reviews of the book were left by transwomen on Amazon.com. [8] [2] She wrote to GLAAD, [9] [2] and "Press for Change" in the UK, which "spread the alert worldwide." [10] [2] Bailey's research subject Anjelica Kieltyka contacted Conway [11] and told her about "how Mr. Bailey exploited her and the young trans women she was mentoring in Chicago..." Conway and others then filed a complaint with Northwestern University accusing Bailey of practicing clinical psychology without a license, [12] and witnessed a complaint by a transwoman accusing Bailey of having sex with a research subject. [13] Benedict Carey wrote an article in which he observed that "the controversy had a life of its own on the Internet." [1] ProudAGP ( talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The more logcal response would be for Dicklyon to add information on the other parts of Conway's life, as he's promised before but hasn't actually done much of.
— James Cantor (
talk) 23:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Dicklyon asks that the paragraph about Conway's involvement be condensed. My revised, suggested, paragraph (below) does just that. (I suspect Dicklyon still doesn't want to "go there" because it notes that Dreger said that Conway made false accusations. But that's important for accuracy.):
Conway has been a prominent critic of the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory of male-to-female transsexualism, objecting to the hypothesis that all transsexual women are motivated either by feminine homosexuality or autogynephilia. [1] She was also a key person in the controversial campaign against J. Michael Bailey's controversial book The Man Who Would Be Queen. [2] [3] Northwestern University professor Alice Dreger published an article about the controversy that concluded that the campaign against Bailey was an attempt to "ruin" Bailey by making various false accusations against him, including that he conducted research without required supervision, that he had sex with a research subject, and that he practiced clinical psychology without a license. [1] ProudAGP ( talk) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have not checked this page in a while--that won't happen again--and I am greatly disturbed by the changes that have occurred, primarily those initiated (without any discussion) by Nogladfeline. The most important problem is the whitewashing of the fact that there is great controversy surrounding Conway's transgender activism, and especially her role in the Bailey book controversy. Whether or not one agrees with Conway--and I don't--it is indisputable that she has been accused in highly reliable sources of very bad behavior (lying to destroy someone's career). Just as on J. Michael Bailey's page there is a presentation of both sides, acknowledging controversy, there should be here too. It's only fair, and also, more importantly for Wikipedia, it's only accurate. And thus I've added the mildest possible acknowledgement of this affair. I will be lobbying soon for more detailed coverage of this controversy. It is certainly the most important thing she has done in decades.
The idea that Conway was truly "stealth" for years is ludicrous. I have met her, and she's among the most masculine transsexuals I've ever met. It would take a clueless observer, indeed, to miss this. We are going on Conway's word, alone, that she was "in stealth." (I have met two people who knew her back then, and both confirm that she was fooling herself.) Obviously, we can't make changes based on anonymous sources, but it would be better to acknowledge that Conway thinks she was in stealth, rather than assert that she actually was in stealth.
"They enjoy sharing many interests and pastimes"...Please!!!! That kind of crap doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It belongs on Conway's own vanity site. ProudAGP ( talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not find Xmoogle's comments above productive; I recommend sticking to specific edits and text in order to improve it instead of predicting what might be said and what might be assumed. I agree that "interests and pastimes" is inappropriate, and I personally agree that the page currently fails to include information in RS's about Conway's controversial role in TMWWBQ. Moreover, I agree that slang such as "in stealth" should be replaced with a more professional description of whatever the relevant RS says...although I am not aware of any RS that says such a thing without merely reflecting Conway's own comments. (Claims on Conway's own website would, however, certainly justify statements such as "she describes..." etc.) Incidentally, although the page uses "activist" and its synonyms several times, there does not appear to be any justication for that term either...there is no mention of groups in which she was elected to office nor mainstream news outlets that mention any instances of activism. (Media mentions all appear to pertain to computer science or the aforementioned controversy). Indeed, none of claims about activism have any sourcing at all.
— James Cantor (
talk) 14:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at
J. Michael Bailey. There is an entire section on the controversy, detailing accusastions, etc. Although I do not necessarily believe a section is needed here (although it might be), the brevity of what is here is indefensible. Conway stands accused in good sources of orchestrating false charges against a scholar in order to ruin him because she didn't like what he had to say. It is infuriating (but predictable) that several people here (especially, Dicklyon, Jokestress, Nogladfeline, and Andrea Parton) believe that there should be no mention (except "in passing") of her role in the controversy. How is that fair? How is it accurate that the controversy be linked strongly to Bailey but barely to Conway? It is so infuriating, in fact, that I am hereby initiating an adequate expansion of the relevant paragraph in the current article. Specifically, the article should include the information (citing reliable sources) that Dreger found that Conway was the instigator of a suite of accusations against Bailey and that these accusations were false. Dicklyon, every time this has happened in the past, you have run to administrators to complain. (You have also broken your agreement to stay off of WP pages dealing with this controversy.) Please let me know if you intend to do that now, so we can involve them from the getgo. We can certainly begin the discussion here. One thing that must be addressed up front is Dicklyon's false insistence that Alice Dreger's important article cannot be used because Dreger is "a principal." The fact is that Conway made Dreger a principal because Dreger was writing the article, and in any case, it's irrelevant to WP policy, provided that the source is reliable, and it is, highly. We can, and should, obviously link to Conway's pages telling her side of the story, and that provides all the balance that's needed. Knowing Jokestress' penchant for inaccurate reporting, I checked her assertion that Conway is mostly in the New York Times for computers and her theatrical efforts. I did indeed find two articles primarily about Carver Mead that mentioned their collaboration (once per article) but no mention of her plays. In any case, no one is suggesting that the controversy receive the attention that Conway's computer career gets. But it could be a solid paragraph, with more specific information, and still be proportional. One alternative, of course, is that Bailey's page receive less attention to the controversy than it currently does. Discuss. (Perhaps someone will also explain to me why Conway and James spent so much time, effort, and computer ink on their campaign against Bailey and now seem to be so ashamed of those efforts.)
ProudAGP (
talk) 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Dicklyon, on this page you are clearly a WP:SPA, because your every edit works to diminish any negative information about Conway. In the past you have removed information that is both notable and true, namely accusations that she orchestrated a campaign of lies against Bailey and his book. You have no evident expertise regarding the controversial material. And as for your breaking of your and James Cantor's agreement, all you need do is look below. He writes: "For reference, here is the agreement that Dicklyon and I made with each other not to edit the controversy section of the Conway page [1], but which Dicklyon has declared he will simply violate as he sees fit." Several other complaints by James Cantor about you in this regard too. ProudAGP ( talk) 19:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Per the sourcing discussion above, I took another look at what the article says, and at what the cited sources say. In particular, here:
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)The idea of a "controversial campaign" is inherent in Dreger. But she never says the campaign is against Bailey (where she mentions an "anti-Bailey campaign", she is not saying there was one, but was referring to a question about an alleged one). Dreger says that Conway "sent me a reply encouraging me to support her campaign against the book." She also reports a private email about "the campaign of a university professor to relegate a book to a kind of Orwellian non-history," where again the campaign is against the book, not the person.
Carey details Conway's involvement, but doesn't make her a campaigner against Bailey: "But by the end of 2003, the controversy had a life of its own on the Internet. Dr. Conway, the computer scientist, kept a running chronicle of the accusations against Dr. Bailey on her Web site."
So this statement seems to accuse Conway of a "bad thing" for which there's no reliable source. Supporting it by a novel synthesis of sources is not a viable alternative. Therefore, it's a WP:BLP violation. I expect y'all to fix it. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This page documents the onset of the trans community's investigation into the publication of J. Michael Bailey's book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, by the National Academy Press.
It all began when Lynn received a message alerting her to the publication of Bailey's book, on 4-10-03. Immediately realizing the seriousness of the situation, Lynn alerted her friend Andrea James (webmistress of the widely-read TS RoadMap) about the book, and they began digging into what had happened.
Within a few days (on 4-12-03), Lynn began posting information about the book on a new page in her website (that page became the "Bailey Investigation website) and alerted Andrea and their mutual friend Becky Allison. The next day (4-13-03) Andrea posted a review and other information about the book (that new page later scaled up to become the BBL Clearinghouse website). Meantime, Becky Allison began posting information about the book into her Blog.
Based on what they had all learned so far, Lynn alerted a wider circle of friends on 4-18-03 about the book, and Becky posted a review of the book that she'd sent to Amazon.com that day. These alerts and the reviews by Andrea and Becky triggered a wave of follow-on negative reviews by many prominent trans women and men ( more).
Now realizing the true gravity of the situation, Lynn began spreading the alert more widely in messages to trans advocacy groups ( such as in this message to GLAAD) on 4-21-03. Responding to those alerts, Christine Burns at Press for Change (PFC) in the UK then spread the alert worldwide by posting it in the widely read "PFC News", on 4-22-03 ( more)
Almost immediately a widespread collaborative internet-based movement formed to investigate and figure out what had happened to cause this book to be published, and to investigate in depth the "science" and "scientists" behind the book.
The very following day (on 4-23-03), we learned from Prof. Joan Roughgarden that Bailey had promoted his book while mocking gay men and transsexual women in a psychology department lecture at Stanford University.
Not long after that (on 5-04-03), Bailey's research subject Anjelica Kieltyka e-mailed Lynn and began telling her story of how Mr. Bailey exploited her and the young trans women she was mentoring in Chicago - using them as unwitting research subjects without their knowledge - and then publishing intimate details about their sex lives in his book without their permission.
As the full gravity of the situation sunk in even more deeply, including awareness that a serious exploitation of research subjects underlay the book, prominent trans women began openly alerting the National Academies: Joan Roughgarden wrote an open letter to the Presidents of the National Academies on 5-05-03, followed by Christine Burns' writing one to the Academies leaders on 5-06-03 Those letters were followed by many many more to the Academies leaders, from trans people all around the world.
And thus the Bailey investigation was launched, and was on its way.
Since I don't edit this section, someone else needs to remove the WP:BLP violation, the assertion that she was involved in a "campaign against J. Michael Bailey." The campaign was clearly about the book; none of the sources support saying that she was in a campaign against Bailey (of course, it is easy to see why many interpret it that way, but that's not enough for putting accusatory info into her bio). Dicklyon ( talk) 02:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
If this is the section that I had agreed with User:James Cantor to not edit, then that at-will agreement is cancelled herewith. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
HFarmer has added a bunch of sentences on Conway's involvement in the Bailey investigation, most of which is correct, but has been synthesized and spun from primary sources, when there are reliable secondary sources (the Carey NYT article) that give a still biased but somewhat more careful and balanced view of it. In particular, H added a long quotation that I could find not basis for in the cited sources, and left an ambiguous sentence about who filed what complaints.
If there's a consensus that more needs to be said in this section, let's have someone less wierd and biased write it, OK? Dicklyon ( talk) 17:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Without having a strong opinion either way about the inclusion of this level of detail, I have moved all the external links into refs. Wikipedia guidelines do not allow this sort of clickable link for inline refs. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I fixed it without reverting this time. That is, I left all the stuff that's sourced to Conway's site, and all the rest that Hfamer wanted in there, but made minor edits to make the material more consistent with the cited sources, and to use better sources when I was able to. If there is anything I didn't get quite right, please do fix it better. Or feel free to remove some of the excess detail sourced to primary sources that now dominates that section that we had been trying to keep short. But no spin, or stuff not supported by the cited sources, please. Dicklyon ( talk) 08:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Although an analogy to war can be apt, it does not change the WP rules, nor Dicklyon's repeated violation of them in this and other pages. Individuals are ultimately responsible for their war-crimes, but in WP and unlike war, the actors are held accountable during rather than after the conflict. You have every right to disagree with my belief that Dicklyon has crossed all reasonable lines and that all reasonable efforts to resolve the problem have been exhausted. However, your disagreement should be based on WP rules, not an analogy, however apt the analogy's other aspects might be.
— James Cantor (
talk) 16:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
James, if you can convince Hfarmer to cooperate, avoid WP:SYNTH, and rigorously respect WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP, then we can reset to before her contentious and inaccurate BLP-violating edits and resume a truce. What do you think? Alternatively, if you think any of my recent edits have moved the article in a bad direction, as opposed to simply correcting her errors, please let's talk about that, and maybe we can move forward without the former agreement. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The problems and warring over the trans-related articles have been going on for a very long time, and the pages themselves remain largely an embarrassment to WP. Despite that Dicklyon calls it a peace offering, there is no reason for me or anyone else to trust that he would not again withdraw from this or any other voluntary agreement when it suits him to do so.
WP:COI suggests that editors listen to the good-faith recommendations of uninvolved editors, and (sans user:Jokestress and me) all such editors have noted problems with Dicklyon's edits here and elsewhere. I am of the opinion that the topic ban he is under for another topic be expanded to include this one. Although is not clear to me whether Hfarmer meant it sincerely, I would indeed support her idea to send the whole big ball to ArbCom.
— James Cantor (
talk) 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The added material certainly is useful in increasing accuracy concerning Conway's notability during the past few years. However, there is one persisting deficiency, and that is that it doesn't say that Dreger found that Conway made false accusations about Bailey, who was "essentially blameless." This is obviously relevant and important to include both for accuracy and fairness. This page need not and should not take a position over whether Conway is right or Dreger is right, but it should definitely be explicit that Dreger said that Conway's campaign took liberties with the truth. For reliable sources and quotations:
I could go on. But don't need to. ProudAGP ( talk) 19:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
For reasons I have already given, which have not been convincingly refuted, this paragraph needs more detail about the specific assertions that Dreger made in her article and that were covered by the New York Times. Below is the slight revision of the current paragraph I propose:
She has been a prominent critic of the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory of male-to-female transsexualism, objecting to the hypothesis that all transsexual women are motivated either by feminine homosexuality or autogynephilia. [1] She was also a key person in the controversial campaign against J. Michael Bailey's controversial book The Man Who Would Be Queen. [2] [3] Northwestern University professor Alice Dreger published a peer-reviewed article about the controversy that concluded that the campaign against Bailey was an attempt to "ruin" Bailey by making various false accusations against him. [1] Conway organized the investigation after receiving a message [4] alerting her to the publication of Bailey's book. Conway alerted her friend Andrea James, [5] and they “began digging into what had happened”. [2] Then she posted [6] information about the book on a page that became the "Bailey Investigation website." [2] Conway spread the word further [7] and many negative reviews of the book were left by transwomen on Amazon.com. [8] [2] She wrote to GLAAD, [9] [2] and "Press for Change" in the UK, which "spread the alert worldwide." [10] [2] Bailey's research subject Anjelica Kieltyka contacted Conway [11] and told her about "how Mr. Bailey exploited her and the young trans women she was mentoring in Chicago..." Conway and others then filed a complaint with Northwestern University accusing Bailey of practicing clinical psychology without a license, [12] and witnessed a complaint by a transwoman accusing Bailey of having sex with a research subject. [13] Benedict Carey wrote an article in which he observed that "the controversy had a life of its own on the Internet." [1] ProudAGP ( talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The more logcal response would be for Dicklyon to add information on the other parts of Conway's life, as he's promised before but hasn't actually done much of.
— James Cantor (
talk) 23:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Dicklyon asks that the paragraph about Conway's involvement be condensed. My revised, suggested, paragraph (below) does just that. (I suspect Dicklyon still doesn't want to "go there" because it notes that Dreger said that Conway made false accusations. But that's important for accuracy.):
Conway has been a prominent critic of the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory of male-to-female transsexualism, objecting to the hypothesis that all transsexual women are motivated either by feminine homosexuality or autogynephilia. [1] She was also a key person in the controversial campaign against J. Michael Bailey's controversial book The Man Who Would Be Queen. [2] [3] Northwestern University professor Alice Dreger published an article about the controversy that concluded that the campaign against Bailey was an attempt to "ruin" Bailey by making various false accusations against him, including that he conducted research without required supervision, that he had sex with a research subject, and that he practiced clinical psychology without a license. [1] ProudAGP ( talk) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)