This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
The NeuroGenderings Network is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject
talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This
WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article was created or improved during
Wiki Loves Pride,
2017.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles
This article was nominated for
deletion on 26 October 2018. The result of
the discussion was keep.
Scepticism about this subject is verboten.
Feminists delete anything sceptical about this organisation — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
218.102.117.127 (
talk) 10:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)reply
This and
this are examples of vandalism.
Politicization of scienceoccurs when
government,
business, or
advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The NeuroGenderings Network is a network of scientists who have dedicated themselves to a particular way of working in the neurosciences - which is not the same thing. --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 13:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Sorry but that sounds exactly like what's happening. The members have taken a particular ideological position, and formed this network as an advocacy group for their beliefs, and are using the the group to influence the way findings are interpreted. I'm sure followers of Lysenko also dedicated themesleves to aparticular way of working too, and were sincere in their beliefs. ONly time will tell whether the members of the NGN are ideologues or scientists.
you have chosen the name "Vintage Feminist" for yourself. I don't know the reasons why you did that, but I am tempted to speculate that you share the NGN's ideological view; if so then perhaps you are not the best person to decide on such issues about this article. You may well beliee that the NGN is sincere its approach but others may not — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
180.168.176.99 (
talk) 09:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)reply
that sounds exactly like what's happening and an advocacy group for their beliefs If you have reliable sources (as per
WP:RS and
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) then create a "Criticism" section and add the quote and citation.
Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
Avoid stating
opinions as
facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant
opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 17:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The tone of the article is rather prissy. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.202.138.121 (
talk) 23:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)reply
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because there are plenty of third party sources contained in the article. Administrators please also note
this diff containing excessive tagging with no corresponding talk messages. If the editor feels so strongly about it I believe they should take it to an AfD. --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 13:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Sourcing of section on Debates
Imho the sourcing of the section on Debates should fulfil the criteria of
WP:MEDRS, which also applies to the related article
Neuroscience of sex differences. The current section was based on primary sources and newspaper articles and I therefore removed it.
Lucleon (
talk) 13:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Leaning no, with the proviso that the section definitely needs editing. The subject matter is not about a specific disease or treatment; while it is about human biology, it does not provide medical advice. Thus, the primary motive for
WP:MEDRS is not really in force. The section is outlining a set of scientific disputes that probably have indirect relevance to medicine eventually, and the sourcing is overall adequate for that kind of material. (MEDRS advises, Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, which appears to be what this section is aiming for.) I do think it needs revision for clarity and concision, but I can't see the case for deleting it altogether.
XOR'easter (
talk) 18:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)reply
yes, the "Debates" section is in breach with
WP:MEDRS as it's not based on secondary sources; in parts not even based on peer-reviewed sources. In contrast, according to
WP:MEDRS "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.".
Lucleon (
talk) 20:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)reply
I presume you are referring to the
WP:MEDDATE section. This article is not about a particular medical condition, it is about a network which examines the basis on which research is carried out. The debates section is an account of the debates in neuroscience, those debates are current and these are the latest examples. Professor
Gina Rippon's latest book, Gendered Brain: the new neuroscience that shatters the myth of the female brainISBN9781847924759, 2019 is based on the on-going debate. --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 12:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)reply
NoWP:MEDRS refers to
biomedical information, the lead section reads all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published
secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This article is not providing biomedical information it is an article about a network of researchers and what informs their research. --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 12:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Support removal. I can't !vote "yes" insofar as I don't agree that MEDRS is violated here, for the reasons articulated by XOR'easter and The Vintage Feminist above, and additionally because the sole primary source is utilized only to source a straight forward summary of it's conclusions, directly quoting and attributing appropriately. That's an entirely permissible use of sourcing, MEDRS topic or not, insofar as the attribution is accurate. Now, it may go out for weight or other issues, but as a sourcing matter, that's fine. The problem is, while the attributed statement itself is fine, it's only really in the article to foreground the opinions of that study expressed by various individuals, in a way that doesn't really help encyclopedically describe the organization but rather the views of various members. In other words, a
WP:COATRACK, and one that specifically involves a kind of
WP:Original research through the back door. Our editors would be selecting which quotes and stances are supposedly emblematic of the group.
WP:reliable sources can do that, but we as editors may not. So in the end this does indeed come around to a need for
WP:Secondary sources (just not as a MEDRS but rather more general sourcing principle), plus the concern of the scope of relevance to the nominal article topic. Snowlet's rap 05:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The problem is, while the attributed statement itself is fine, it's only really in the article to foreground the opinions of that study expressed by various individuals, in a way that doesn't really help encyclopedically describe the organization but rather the views of various members. The views of the various members are the reason for the network's existence, how can we describe the network without describing their views?
Our editors would be selecting which quotes and stances are supposedly emblematic of the group. WP:reliable sources can do that, but we as editors may not. We would never be able to write any article about any group if we didn't do exactly that. --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 18:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)reply
No, I'm afraid that's exactly what
WP:OR,
WP:WEIGHT, and other central policies carefully advise that me must avoid doing in all such cases. We cannot go around willy-nilly selecting the facts, stances, or primary statements that we, in our idiosyncratic view as individuals, feel are the "important" or "representative" details about a given organization. That is the role of
WP:Secondary,
WP:reliable sources. If such sources describe a given statement, stance, or outlook as one being representative of the group (or in some cases, when the group does so itself, expressly) then we might discuss that source's interpretation, ideally with clear attribution. But what we can't do is use this article to
WP:coatrack in a bunch of independent statements made by members of the organization (but with no explicit connection to their role within said organization, as established by those primary sources) and construct for ourselves the narrative that these particular statements, by these particular individuals, on these particular occasions, are the ones which represent and define the organization. That would be plain and blatant original research, unless a citeable RS has already made such an observation. Snowlet's rap 21:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes - (Responding to the RfC) I think Snow Rise is right here; the sources look to be okay for statements about those individuals and their beliefs, as would appear, for example, on their own articles. But we're lacking evidence that these are positions of the network as a whole, so secondary sources (or official statements on behalf of the network, if there are such things) would be preferable. "The group includes at least one member who believes X" doesn't tell us much about any group, and runs the risk of inadvertent bias if belief X doesn't happen to be as representative as we think.
Anaxial (
talk) 08:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)reply
That seems like a thing that could be fixed by editing and condensing the section, which I think ought to happen anyway. In other words, it's a phrasing issue, rather than an existence-of-the-whole-section issue.
XOR'easter (
talk) 21:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Agree with Snow Rise I can't really say yes/no to this, as I don't think it's in breach of MEDRS - the article describes the research and the differences in interpretations, but falls short of actually making a statement about whether either view is correct and therefore making an actual biomedical assertion. However, from the sources presented here I agree that it's not clear that the views ascribed to the individuals formally represent those of the network itself; I'm also not clear on why we are giving so much weight to these two particular debates (to the extent that discussion of them makes up almost half the content of the article). I'd suggest that we either remove the section, or reword to make the distinction between the network and its individual members clearer, and greatly expand to give a better representation of the work that members of the network do.
GirthSummit (blether) 11:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Leaning agree with Snow Rise:Alerted to discussion by
The Vintage Feminist's post at
WT:POLITICS. Unless someone proves to me that these are all unreliable sources, I cannot vote 'yes'. But it is possible that undue weight is given to specific controversies, arranged in a way that implies that Wikipedia thinks that the organization is a fringe group that fixes their experiments and unduly discredits studies that undermine their allegedly feminist agenda. —Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs) 14:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Anyone who wants to choose and replace the debates with other debates that they think are more representative examples of the network's ethos then I would have no problem with that, but at the moment it feels like [an analogy] "Ah yes you have found quotes from Bernie Saunders and his campaign team that show he/they have left-wing views but how do we know he/they have left-wing views and you didn't just go cherry-picking willy-nilly?" The NeuroGenderings Network set up to tackle what they call "Neurotrash". It is who they are. It is what they do. I described them by example and included the work of those they disagree with so as to avoid
WP:UNDUE. I am not sure what else is being asked for here. --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 18:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
That looks fine as a source for a statement about Gina Rippon's beliefs, as would be appropriate for her own article. It's not apparent from the source that this view is typical of the whole network (it may be, but it doesn't say that, unless I missed a bit?). To take the Sanders analogy, we could take a statement he had made and use it to support a statement about what Sanders himself believes. But, if he's standing as Democractic Party candidate for President, we can't take a statement he has made and say that this belief is therefore typical of Democratic Party presidential candidates, because it might not be. I'm not actually saying that the section should be deleted in its entirety, but I do think it needs better sourcing.
Anaxial (
talk) 21:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Anaxial. It's actually quite easy to show that these views are typical of the whole network but it means using the Network as refs but the Network is a primary source. I used refs from individual members for notability and to avoid using the Network refs and quoted those that disagree with the members to avoid
WP:UNDUE.
It is worth reiterating that the section kept being deleted on the grounds that it breaches
WP:MEDRS, but – on
WP:COMMONSENSE grounds – I hadn't really anticipated it becoming a question of "Ah yes but how do you know they all think that way?" --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 12:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
The NeuroGenderings Network is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject
talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This
WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article was created or improved during
Wiki Loves Pride,
2017.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles
This article was nominated for
deletion on 26 October 2018. The result of
the discussion was keep.
Scepticism about this subject is verboten.
Feminists delete anything sceptical about this organisation — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
218.102.117.127 (
talk) 10:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)reply
This and
this are examples of vandalism.
Politicization of scienceoccurs when
government,
business, or
advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The NeuroGenderings Network is a network of scientists who have dedicated themselves to a particular way of working in the neurosciences - which is not the same thing. --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 13:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Sorry but that sounds exactly like what's happening. The members have taken a particular ideological position, and formed this network as an advocacy group for their beliefs, and are using the the group to influence the way findings are interpreted. I'm sure followers of Lysenko also dedicated themesleves to aparticular way of working too, and were sincere in their beliefs. ONly time will tell whether the members of the NGN are ideologues or scientists.
you have chosen the name "Vintage Feminist" for yourself. I don't know the reasons why you did that, but I am tempted to speculate that you share the NGN's ideological view; if so then perhaps you are not the best person to decide on such issues about this article. You may well beliee that the NGN is sincere its approach but others may not — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
180.168.176.99 (
talk) 09:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)reply
that sounds exactly like what's happening and an advocacy group for their beliefs If you have reliable sources (as per
WP:RS and
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) then create a "Criticism" section and add the quote and citation.
Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
Avoid stating
opinions as
facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant
opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 17:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The tone of the article is rather prissy. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.202.138.121 (
talk) 23:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)reply
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because there are plenty of third party sources contained in the article. Administrators please also note
this diff containing excessive tagging with no corresponding talk messages. If the editor feels so strongly about it I believe they should take it to an AfD. --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 13:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Sourcing of section on Debates
Imho the sourcing of the section on Debates should fulfil the criteria of
WP:MEDRS, which also applies to the related article
Neuroscience of sex differences. The current section was based on primary sources and newspaper articles and I therefore removed it.
Lucleon (
talk) 13:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Leaning no, with the proviso that the section definitely needs editing. The subject matter is not about a specific disease or treatment; while it is about human biology, it does not provide medical advice. Thus, the primary motive for
WP:MEDRS is not really in force. The section is outlining a set of scientific disputes that probably have indirect relevance to medicine eventually, and the sourcing is overall adequate for that kind of material. (MEDRS advises, Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, which appears to be what this section is aiming for.) I do think it needs revision for clarity and concision, but I can't see the case for deleting it altogether.
XOR'easter (
talk) 18:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)reply
yes, the "Debates" section is in breach with
WP:MEDRS as it's not based on secondary sources; in parts not even based on peer-reviewed sources. In contrast, according to
WP:MEDRS "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.".
Lucleon (
talk) 20:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)reply
I presume you are referring to the
WP:MEDDATE section. This article is not about a particular medical condition, it is about a network which examines the basis on which research is carried out. The debates section is an account of the debates in neuroscience, those debates are current and these are the latest examples. Professor
Gina Rippon's latest book, Gendered Brain: the new neuroscience that shatters the myth of the female brainISBN9781847924759, 2019 is based on the on-going debate. --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 12:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)reply
NoWP:MEDRS refers to
biomedical information, the lead section reads all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published
secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This article is not providing biomedical information it is an article about a network of researchers and what informs their research. --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 12:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Support removal. I can't !vote "yes" insofar as I don't agree that MEDRS is violated here, for the reasons articulated by XOR'easter and The Vintage Feminist above, and additionally because the sole primary source is utilized only to source a straight forward summary of it's conclusions, directly quoting and attributing appropriately. That's an entirely permissible use of sourcing, MEDRS topic or not, insofar as the attribution is accurate. Now, it may go out for weight or other issues, but as a sourcing matter, that's fine. The problem is, while the attributed statement itself is fine, it's only really in the article to foreground the opinions of that study expressed by various individuals, in a way that doesn't really help encyclopedically describe the organization but rather the views of various members. In other words, a
WP:COATRACK, and one that specifically involves a kind of
WP:Original research through the back door. Our editors would be selecting which quotes and stances are supposedly emblematic of the group.
WP:reliable sources can do that, but we as editors may not. So in the end this does indeed come around to a need for
WP:Secondary sources (just not as a MEDRS but rather more general sourcing principle), plus the concern of the scope of relevance to the nominal article topic. Snowlet's rap 05:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The problem is, while the attributed statement itself is fine, it's only really in the article to foreground the opinions of that study expressed by various individuals, in a way that doesn't really help encyclopedically describe the organization but rather the views of various members. The views of the various members are the reason for the network's existence, how can we describe the network without describing their views?
Our editors would be selecting which quotes and stances are supposedly emblematic of the group. WP:reliable sources can do that, but we as editors may not. We would never be able to write any article about any group if we didn't do exactly that. --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 18:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)reply
No, I'm afraid that's exactly what
WP:OR,
WP:WEIGHT, and other central policies carefully advise that me must avoid doing in all such cases. We cannot go around willy-nilly selecting the facts, stances, or primary statements that we, in our idiosyncratic view as individuals, feel are the "important" or "representative" details about a given organization. That is the role of
WP:Secondary,
WP:reliable sources. If such sources describe a given statement, stance, or outlook as one being representative of the group (or in some cases, when the group does so itself, expressly) then we might discuss that source's interpretation, ideally with clear attribution. But what we can't do is use this article to
WP:coatrack in a bunch of independent statements made by members of the organization (but with no explicit connection to their role within said organization, as established by those primary sources) and construct for ourselves the narrative that these particular statements, by these particular individuals, on these particular occasions, are the ones which represent and define the organization. That would be plain and blatant original research, unless a citeable RS has already made such an observation. Snowlet's rap 21:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes - (Responding to the RfC) I think Snow Rise is right here; the sources look to be okay for statements about those individuals and their beliefs, as would appear, for example, on their own articles. But we're lacking evidence that these are positions of the network as a whole, so secondary sources (or official statements on behalf of the network, if there are such things) would be preferable. "The group includes at least one member who believes X" doesn't tell us much about any group, and runs the risk of inadvertent bias if belief X doesn't happen to be as representative as we think.
Anaxial (
talk) 08:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)reply
That seems like a thing that could be fixed by editing and condensing the section, which I think ought to happen anyway. In other words, it's a phrasing issue, rather than an existence-of-the-whole-section issue.
XOR'easter (
talk) 21:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Agree with Snow Rise I can't really say yes/no to this, as I don't think it's in breach of MEDRS - the article describes the research and the differences in interpretations, but falls short of actually making a statement about whether either view is correct and therefore making an actual biomedical assertion. However, from the sources presented here I agree that it's not clear that the views ascribed to the individuals formally represent those of the network itself; I'm also not clear on why we are giving so much weight to these two particular debates (to the extent that discussion of them makes up almost half the content of the article). I'd suggest that we either remove the section, or reword to make the distinction between the network and its individual members clearer, and greatly expand to give a better representation of the work that members of the network do.
GirthSummit (blether) 11:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Leaning agree with Snow Rise:Alerted to discussion by
The Vintage Feminist's post at
WT:POLITICS. Unless someone proves to me that these are all unreliable sources, I cannot vote 'yes'. But it is possible that undue weight is given to specific controversies, arranged in a way that implies that Wikipedia thinks that the organization is a fringe group that fixes their experiments and unduly discredits studies that undermine their allegedly feminist agenda. —Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs) 14:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Anyone who wants to choose and replace the debates with other debates that they think are more representative examples of the network's ethos then I would have no problem with that, but at the moment it feels like [an analogy] "Ah yes you have found quotes from Bernie Saunders and his campaign team that show he/they have left-wing views but how do we know he/they have left-wing views and you didn't just go cherry-picking willy-nilly?" The NeuroGenderings Network set up to tackle what they call "Neurotrash". It is who they are. It is what they do. I described them by example and included the work of those they disagree with so as to avoid
WP:UNDUE. I am not sure what else is being asked for here. --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 18:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
That looks fine as a source for a statement about Gina Rippon's beliefs, as would be appropriate for her own article. It's not apparent from the source that this view is typical of the whole network (it may be, but it doesn't say that, unless I missed a bit?). To take the Sanders analogy, we could take a statement he had made and use it to support a statement about what Sanders himself believes. But, if he's standing as Democractic Party candidate for President, we can't take a statement he has made and say that this belief is therefore typical of Democratic Party presidential candidates, because it might not be. I'm not actually saying that the section should be deleted in its entirety, but I do think it needs better sourcing.
Anaxial (
talk) 21:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Anaxial. It's actually quite easy to show that these views are typical of the whole network but it means using the Network as refs but the Network is a primary source. I used refs from individual members for notability and to avoid using the Network refs and quoted those that disagree with the members to avoid
WP:UNDUE.
It is worth reiterating that the section kept being deleted on the grounds that it breaches
WP:MEDRS, but – on
WP:COMMONSENSE grounds – I hadn't really anticipated it becoming a question of "Ah yes but how do you know they all think that way?" --
The Vintage Feminist (
talk) 12:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.