This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality 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: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The reviews of the book on this article suggests it only took praise, but a quick search within one of the sources showed that it is also been critized. A matter the original writer of the article forgot or looked over it. I fixed one of them , but at this moment the article looks like it lacks NPOV. So, I suggest we look better into the subject. Mathijsloo ( talk) 14:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
On 10 August 2021, User:OwenBlacker added a {Peacock} template without specifying any such objectionable terms in his edit summary. Wikipedia's MOS:PEACOCK guideline provides a helpful list, but not one of these 31 "words to watch" appears in Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality:
legendary, best, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, popular, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, revolutionary, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique, pioneering, phenomenal ...
I recognize that the list is meant to be suggestive not exhaustive. Nevertheless, I don't see similar language in our article justifying the page-top banner. I shall therefore take the liberty of removing the template awaiting consensus as to its inclusion. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 17:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Adding tags for non-obvious or perceived problems—without identifying the problem well enough for it to be easily fixed...When it comes to confusing or subjective tags, such as [npov], it is important to explain yourself on the article's talk page or in an edit summary.I do not see any peacock terms; tag them specifically inline if they exist or point them out here. Additionally, Template:POV states,
The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor....This template should not be used as a badge of shame....The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.That is very, very clear. These tags aren't for editors to shame indefinitely articles where they personally disagree with what the sources say, or feel vaguely that something is missing but can't demonstrate it. These tags are groundless and will be removed. If they are reinstated again without meaningful proposals, that is disruptive editing. Crossroads -talk- 17:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
When the issue has been adequately addressed...If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error....if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page...If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. For example: [the POV tag] strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag.You need to give specific, actionable ideas based on reliable sources. Your unsourced opinion that the article "is in no way a balanced view of the book" referring to a vague "plenty of controversy" is not relevant without sources, per Template:POV quoted above. WNTRMT is not a WP:FILIBUSTER technique to say that tags must stay until you personally are satisified; there must be proof of actual problems per policy. I'm more than willing to work on actual issues and add missing RS, but I have to have something of substance to work with. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The entirety of the "Summary" section is comprised of original research. There are no sources but the book itself, so the editor who wrote the section basically included his or her understanding of the ideas of the original work. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs secondary sources that can attest to possible interpretations of published works. As it stands right now, the section is original research. Best regards-- Freddy eduardo ( talk) 20:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.This is quite in line with that and with many other book articles. Crossroads -talk- 20:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Summary sections are common and very useful in articles about fiction and non-fiction books (See for example
The Lord of the Rings,
The Second Sex or
The Communist Manifesto, all of which rely mainly on primary sources). Actually, I'd like to congratulate Crossroads for writing this one. -
Daveout
(talk)
01:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems (from the article history, from the discussion here, and also at Talk:Helen Joyce that a number of editors feel this article is indeed written from a non-neutral point of view. I am accordingly reinstating the NPOV template, though I think that we could do with a closer look at the sources to work the issue through. Thanks, The Land ( talk) 20:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
There is now an additional academic review of Trans, which someone more patient than I could work into this article: [5] Newimpartial ( talk) 14:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality 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: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The reviews of the book on this article suggests it only took praise, but a quick search within one of the sources showed that it is also been critized. A matter the original writer of the article forgot or looked over it. I fixed one of them , but at this moment the article looks like it lacks NPOV. So, I suggest we look better into the subject. Mathijsloo ( talk) 14:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
On 10 August 2021, User:OwenBlacker added a {Peacock} template without specifying any such objectionable terms in his edit summary. Wikipedia's MOS:PEACOCK guideline provides a helpful list, but not one of these 31 "words to watch" appears in Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality:
legendary, best, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, popular, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, revolutionary, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique, pioneering, phenomenal ...
I recognize that the list is meant to be suggestive not exhaustive. Nevertheless, I don't see similar language in our article justifying the page-top banner. I shall therefore take the liberty of removing the template awaiting consensus as to its inclusion. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 17:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Adding tags for non-obvious or perceived problems—without identifying the problem well enough for it to be easily fixed...When it comes to confusing or subjective tags, such as [npov], it is important to explain yourself on the article's talk page or in an edit summary.I do not see any peacock terms; tag them specifically inline if they exist or point them out here. Additionally, Template:POV states,
The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor....This template should not be used as a badge of shame....The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.That is very, very clear. These tags aren't for editors to shame indefinitely articles where they personally disagree with what the sources say, or feel vaguely that something is missing but can't demonstrate it. These tags are groundless and will be removed. If they are reinstated again without meaningful proposals, that is disruptive editing. Crossroads -talk- 17:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
When the issue has been adequately addressed...If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error....if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page...If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. For example: [the POV tag] strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag.You need to give specific, actionable ideas based on reliable sources. Your unsourced opinion that the article "is in no way a balanced view of the book" referring to a vague "plenty of controversy" is not relevant without sources, per Template:POV quoted above. WNTRMT is not a WP:FILIBUSTER technique to say that tags must stay until you personally are satisified; there must be proof of actual problems per policy. I'm more than willing to work on actual issues and add missing RS, but I have to have something of substance to work with. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The entirety of the "Summary" section is comprised of original research. There are no sources but the book itself, so the editor who wrote the section basically included his or her understanding of the ideas of the original work. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs secondary sources that can attest to possible interpretations of published works. As it stands right now, the section is original research. Best regards-- Freddy eduardo ( talk) 20:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.This is quite in line with that and with many other book articles. Crossroads -talk- 20:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Summary sections are common and very useful in articles about fiction and non-fiction books (See for example
The Lord of the Rings,
The Second Sex or
The Communist Manifesto, all of which rely mainly on primary sources). Actually, I'd like to congratulate Crossroads for writing this one. -
Daveout
(talk)
01:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems (from the article history, from the discussion here, and also at Talk:Helen Joyce that a number of editors feel this article is indeed written from a non-neutral point of view. I am accordingly reinstating the NPOV template, though I think that we could do with a closer look at the sources to work the issue through. Thanks, The Land ( talk) 20:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
There is now an additional academic review of Trans, which someone more patient than I could work into this article: [5] Newimpartial ( talk) 14:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)