 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
So, this sentence has been removed twice, and I simply don't understand why:
- "In particular, the book questions whether young children suffering from gender dysphoria can give meaningful consent to a lifetime of sterility resulting from the hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery sometimes prescribed to treat their condition." (wikilinks and references deleted for discussion)
The statement is an accurate summation the contents of the book, and as I understand it the main reason why the book itself is controversial. I do not see how the statement can be made more NPOV, but nor do I see how we can cover the book without it or some similar statement of why it is controversial. Jclemens ( talk) 06:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- What the book says is extremely controversial, since it was removed from Amazon over it (or at least over Amazon's interpretation of it); and the author obviously cannot be cited as an objective, disinterested party for summarizing that. In particular, the question of whether it treats being transgender as a mental illness is central to all the disputes over it since that was what Amazon cited as the specific reason for removal. Since the author's summary (coming from a fairly strident opinion-piece where they argue they are being censored) is intended to answer those accusations by framing it in a way that dismisses that reading, and patiently attempts to frame the book's removal as being based on something the author clearly hopes readers will find more sympathetic, it is unduly self-serving and cannot be used via
WP:ABOUTSELF. Similarly, we cannot cite the book itself for that because interpretation and analysis is necessary to cover what it says in this context (and we certainly cannot toss in a cite to the book itself, used to justify a self-serving reading of the book's content that actually comes straight from the author - if you want to replace the cite to the author you have to rewrite the summary to focus on what the book actually says rather than a snappy opinion-piece they wrote defending it.) Ideally, we should use a reliable, independent secondary source to summarize the topic in a situation like this. For possible secondary sources, see eg.
here (a review in a peer-reviewed journal), which has a detailed chapter-by-chapter breakdown. Note that their description and focus as described there is drastically different from the one the author provided in that opinion piece; furthermore, note that the aspect the author highlighted in their strident opinion-piece is actually a relatively small part of the book as described in that review. In fact, the discussion of young children which the book "in particular" mentions and which you want to highlight as central in the lead is confined to just one chapter at the end - no sources that we have, aside from an opinion-piece by the author, highlight it as central. Again, that framing is one the author adopted in an unduly self-serving opinion-piece intended as a volley in the culture wars over the book; it is not a neutral or objective description and does not accurately summarize the book's content as a whole. --
Aquillion (
talk) 14:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- First off, I didn't write the sentence; page history shows that it was part of the original author
Kendrick7's first published version. My position, however, is that it remains a relevant summary of one of the most controversial claims in the book. Per
WP:YESPOV, we need to cover it neutrally; the proposed replacement text, while fine on its own, does not do as good a job as the original author's description. I'm going to work with what you've done and expand it further, using the Lu piece from National Review, which is a book review that you had inaccurately labeled as an opinion piece in your edit summary.
Jclemens (
talk) 16:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "one of the most controversial claims in the book?" I see nothing we can cite for statements of fact indicating that it is a major focus of controversy. Only the author is trying to emphasize it as the point of controversy, and only in an opinion piece; that certainly isn't enough to justify the prominence you want to give it. It seems to be an unimportant footnote from a single chapter that attracted no real attention and no real controversy; the author's opinion piece wants to present it as something that sparked controversy, but obviously that is a self-serving claim and requires decent secondary sourcing before we could use it. Absent that secondary sourcing it has no particular relevance. I strenuously oppose any cites to that opinion piece, at the very least, without clear in-line attribution that makes it unambiguous that we are describing the author's own opinions; and it would have to be further down the article, clearly separated from the summary to make it clear that we are describing the author's personal opinions and not summarizing the content of the book in the article voice. Regarding the National Review, book reviews are generally opinion pieces unless they're from eg. peer-reviewed journals, since they express nothing but the opinion of the author on the work - and beyond that, please see National Review's entry on
WP:RSP:
Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.
It cannot be used without in-line attribution either, and has to be used carefully to avoid undue weight. All the same issues mentioned above apply - at best it can only be used to cite the author's attributed opinion, as their opinion; it's not a usable source for a summary that is stated as fact. Both your proposed sources would be (if used for unattributed statements of fact) a clear violation of WP:YESPOV in that you are suggesting we use opinionated or biased sources to present opinions as fact without attribution. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)- I'm sorry, but no one is suggesting we "present opinions as fact without attribution," nor would use without in-line attribution be appropriate. I appreciate the cautions, and I know you're not trying to be pedantic, but I'm not particularly a stranger to Wikipedia sourcing guidelines. We do need to cover the appropriate controversies appropriately. Book reviews are book reviews, and I simply don't see any meaningful difference in using partisan or non-partisan, peer-reviewed or non-peer-reviewed reliable sources to discuss the book; sure, all are inherently opinion pieces, but that's not the best or most specific descriptor for them. At any rate, I'm going to add back a few aspects in line with the above discussion. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 18:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, Aquillion, what do you think of that readdition of the USA Today piece? It feels a tad more verbose than necessary, but it's absolutely clear whom is saying what where. Jclemens ( talk) 18:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "one of the most controversial claims in the book?" I see nothing we can cite for statements of fact indicating that it is a major focus of controversy. Only the author is trying to emphasize it as the point of controversy, and only in an opinion piece; that certainly isn't enough to justify the prominence you want to give it. It seems to be an unimportant footnote from a single chapter that attracted no real attention and no real controversy; the author's opinion piece wants to present it as something that sparked controversy, but obviously that is a self-serving claim and requires decent secondary sourcing before we could use it. Absent that secondary sourcing it has no particular relevance. I strenuously oppose any cites to that opinion piece, at the very least, without clear in-line attribution that makes it unambiguous that we are describing the author's own opinions; and it would have to be further down the article, clearly separated from the summary to make it clear that we are describing the author's personal opinions and not summarizing the content of the book in the article voice. Regarding the National Review, book reviews are generally opinion pieces unless they're from eg. peer-reviewed journals, since they express nothing but the opinion of the author on the work - and beyond that, please see National Review's entry on
WP:RSP:
- First off, I didn't write the sentence; page history shows that it was part of the original author
Kendrick7's first published version. My position, however, is that it remains a relevant summary of one of the most controversial claims in the book. Per
WP:YESPOV, we need to cover it neutrally; the proposed replacement text, while fine on its own, does not do as good a job as the original author's description. I'm going to work with what you've done and expand it further, using the Lu piece from National Review, which is a book review that you had inaccurately labeled as an opinion piece in your edit summary.
Jclemens (
talk) 16:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with everything Jclemens has written, and would like to see the refs which were removed in violation of the WP:REMOVECITE guideline restored. -- Kendrick7 talk 21:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a drive by category was added. I'm not sure whether this book is appropriately included--the category seems pretty POV to me and I'm not sure what the inclusion criteria are. Does anyone have any thoughts on whether this book belongs? Jclemens ( talk) 23:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted irrelevant category. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- ... and the article was drive by tagged with a "hate speech" category, which I've removed as well. WP:POVCAT seems pretty clear that that's not appropriate. Jclemens ( talk) 23:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether you think this is hate speech, it is relevant to the concept. Amazon's categorization of the book as hate speech is a big part of its noteriety.
MagicatthemovieS (
talk)MagicattehmovieS
- (ec)Looking at Google News,
this is the only thing in the category for this book. The Hill, considered reliable at
WP:RSP, doesn't describe the book as hate speech or containing hate speech, just notes that Amazon has a 'hate speech' category that this book was supposedly banned under.
Jclemens (
talk) 05:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think that supports my argument.
MagicatthemovieS (
talk) 05:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- The book has been notably connected to the concept of hate speech, correct?
MagicatthemovieS (
talk) 05:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- You didn't add a category "books accused of being hate speech", which would be appropriate. In addition to WP:POVCAT, do look at WP:CATDEF, the next clause. While Amazon, one business, may have called this hate speech, I was unable to find anything via Google News which does. That certainly doesn't seem like the hate speech controversy is commonly and consistently referred to. Hate speech is the category article, and no, it doesn't mention anything directly or indirectly relevant to the book. If Focus on the Family called it the 67th book of the Bible and The Hill reported on that, would we add the category "Christian Scripture" to the article? Obviously not. The controversy is covered in the article text, and I believe that is sufficient, appropriate, and in line with our policies: slapping "hate speech" as a category would imply that the categorization is established enough to state in Wikipedia's voice, which it clearly is not. Jclemens ( talk) 05:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also, go look at Category:Hate_speech. What's missing from there? Mein Kampf? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? If they're not included, it's a pretty good bet that this shouldn't be. Jclemens ( talk) 05:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- The book has been notably connected to the concept of hate speech, correct?
MagicatthemovieS (
talk) 05:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- I think that supports my argument.
MagicatthemovieS (
talk) 05:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- (ec)Looking at Google News,
this is the only thing in the category for this book. The Hill, considered reliable at
WP:RSP, doesn't describe the book as hate speech or containing hate speech, just notes that Amazon has a 'hate speech' category that this book was supposedly banned under.
Jclemens (
talk) 05:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| 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. |
So, this sentence has been removed twice, and I simply don't understand why:
- "In particular, the book questions whether young children suffering from gender dysphoria can give meaningful consent to a lifetime of sterility resulting from the hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery sometimes prescribed to treat their condition." (wikilinks and references deleted for discussion)
The statement is an accurate summation the contents of the book, and as I understand it the main reason why the book itself is controversial. I do not see how the statement can be made more NPOV, but nor do I see how we can cover the book without it or some similar statement of why it is controversial. Jclemens ( talk) 06:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- What the book says is extremely controversial, since it was removed from Amazon over it (or at least over Amazon's interpretation of it); and the author obviously cannot be cited as an objective, disinterested party for summarizing that. In particular, the question of whether it treats being transgender as a mental illness is central to all the disputes over it since that was what Amazon cited as the specific reason for removal. Since the author's summary (coming from a fairly strident opinion-piece where they argue they are being censored) is intended to answer those accusations by framing it in a way that dismisses that reading, and patiently attempts to frame the book's removal as being based on something the author clearly hopes readers will find more sympathetic, it is unduly self-serving and cannot be used via
WP:ABOUTSELF. Similarly, we cannot cite the book itself for that because interpretation and analysis is necessary to cover what it says in this context (and we certainly cannot toss in a cite to the book itself, used to justify a self-serving reading of the book's content that actually comes straight from the author - if you want to replace the cite to the author you have to rewrite the summary to focus on what the book actually says rather than a snappy opinion-piece they wrote defending it.) Ideally, we should use a reliable, independent secondary source to summarize the topic in a situation like this. For possible secondary sources, see eg.
here (a review in a peer-reviewed journal), which has a detailed chapter-by-chapter breakdown. Note that their description and focus as described there is drastically different from the one the author provided in that opinion piece; furthermore, note that the aspect the author highlighted in their strident opinion-piece is actually a relatively small part of the book as described in that review. In fact, the discussion of young children which the book "in particular" mentions and which you want to highlight as central in the lead is confined to just one chapter at the end - no sources that we have, aside from an opinion-piece by the author, highlight it as central. Again, that framing is one the author adopted in an unduly self-serving opinion-piece intended as a volley in the culture wars over the book; it is not a neutral or objective description and does not accurately summarize the book's content as a whole. --
Aquillion (
talk) 14:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- First off, I didn't write the sentence; page history shows that it was part of the original author
Kendrick7's first published version. My position, however, is that it remains a relevant summary of one of the most controversial claims in the book. Per
WP:YESPOV, we need to cover it neutrally; the proposed replacement text, while fine on its own, does not do as good a job as the original author's description. I'm going to work with what you've done and expand it further, using the Lu piece from National Review, which is a book review that you had inaccurately labeled as an opinion piece in your edit summary.
Jclemens (
talk) 16:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "one of the most controversial claims in the book?" I see nothing we can cite for statements of fact indicating that it is a major focus of controversy. Only the author is trying to emphasize it as the point of controversy, and only in an opinion piece; that certainly isn't enough to justify the prominence you want to give it. It seems to be an unimportant footnote from a single chapter that attracted no real attention and no real controversy; the author's opinion piece wants to present it as something that sparked controversy, but obviously that is a self-serving claim and requires decent secondary sourcing before we could use it. Absent that secondary sourcing it has no particular relevance. I strenuously oppose any cites to that opinion piece, at the very least, without clear in-line attribution that makes it unambiguous that we are describing the author's own opinions; and it would have to be further down the article, clearly separated from the summary to make it clear that we are describing the author's personal opinions and not summarizing the content of the book in the article voice. Regarding the National Review, book reviews are generally opinion pieces unless they're from eg. peer-reviewed journals, since they express nothing but the opinion of the author on the work - and beyond that, please see National Review's entry on
WP:RSP:
Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.
It cannot be used without in-line attribution either, and has to be used carefully to avoid undue weight. All the same issues mentioned above apply - at best it can only be used to cite the author's attributed opinion, as their opinion; it's not a usable source for a summary that is stated as fact. Both your proposed sources would be (if used for unattributed statements of fact) a clear violation of WP:YESPOV in that you are suggesting we use opinionated or biased sources to present opinions as fact without attribution. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)- I'm sorry, but no one is suggesting we "present opinions as fact without attribution," nor would use without in-line attribution be appropriate. I appreciate the cautions, and I know you're not trying to be pedantic, but I'm not particularly a stranger to Wikipedia sourcing guidelines. We do need to cover the appropriate controversies appropriately. Book reviews are book reviews, and I simply don't see any meaningful difference in using partisan or non-partisan, peer-reviewed or non-peer-reviewed reliable sources to discuss the book; sure, all are inherently opinion pieces, but that's not the best or most specific descriptor for them. At any rate, I'm going to add back a few aspects in line with the above discussion. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 18:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, Aquillion, what do you think of that readdition of the USA Today piece? It feels a tad more verbose than necessary, but it's absolutely clear whom is saying what where. Jclemens ( talk) 18:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "one of the most controversial claims in the book?" I see nothing we can cite for statements of fact indicating that it is a major focus of controversy. Only the author is trying to emphasize it as the point of controversy, and only in an opinion piece; that certainly isn't enough to justify the prominence you want to give it. It seems to be an unimportant footnote from a single chapter that attracted no real attention and no real controversy; the author's opinion piece wants to present it as something that sparked controversy, but obviously that is a self-serving claim and requires decent secondary sourcing before we could use it. Absent that secondary sourcing it has no particular relevance. I strenuously oppose any cites to that opinion piece, at the very least, without clear in-line attribution that makes it unambiguous that we are describing the author's own opinions; and it would have to be further down the article, clearly separated from the summary to make it clear that we are describing the author's personal opinions and not summarizing the content of the book in the article voice. Regarding the National Review, book reviews are generally opinion pieces unless they're from eg. peer-reviewed journals, since they express nothing but the opinion of the author on the work - and beyond that, please see National Review's entry on
WP:RSP:
- First off, I didn't write the sentence; page history shows that it was part of the original author
Kendrick7's first published version. My position, however, is that it remains a relevant summary of one of the most controversial claims in the book. Per
WP:YESPOV, we need to cover it neutrally; the proposed replacement text, while fine on its own, does not do as good a job as the original author's description. I'm going to work with what you've done and expand it further, using the Lu piece from National Review, which is a book review that you had inaccurately labeled as an opinion piece in your edit summary.
Jclemens (
talk) 16:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with everything Jclemens has written, and would like to see the refs which were removed in violation of the WP:REMOVECITE guideline restored. -- Kendrick7 talk 21:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a drive by category was added. I'm not sure whether this book is appropriately included--the category seems pretty POV to me and I'm not sure what the inclusion criteria are. Does anyone have any thoughts on whether this book belongs? Jclemens ( talk) 23:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted irrelevant category. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- ... and the article was drive by tagged with a "hate speech" category, which I've removed as well. WP:POVCAT seems pretty clear that that's not appropriate. Jclemens ( talk) 23:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether you think this is hate speech, it is relevant to the concept. Amazon's categorization of the book as hate speech is a big part of its noteriety.
MagicatthemovieS (
talk)MagicattehmovieS
- (ec)Looking at Google News,
this is the only thing in the category for this book. The Hill, considered reliable at
WP:RSP, doesn't describe the book as hate speech or containing hate speech, just notes that Amazon has a 'hate speech' category that this book was supposedly banned under.
Jclemens (
talk) 05:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think that supports my argument.
MagicatthemovieS (
talk) 05:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- The book has been notably connected to the concept of hate speech, correct?
MagicatthemovieS (
talk) 05:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- You didn't add a category "books accused of being hate speech", which would be appropriate. In addition to WP:POVCAT, do look at WP:CATDEF, the next clause. While Amazon, one business, may have called this hate speech, I was unable to find anything via Google News which does. That certainly doesn't seem like the hate speech controversy is commonly and consistently referred to. Hate speech is the category article, and no, it doesn't mention anything directly or indirectly relevant to the book. If Focus on the Family called it the 67th book of the Bible and The Hill reported on that, would we add the category "Christian Scripture" to the article? Obviously not. The controversy is covered in the article text, and I believe that is sufficient, appropriate, and in line with our policies: slapping "hate speech" as a category would imply that the categorization is established enough to state in Wikipedia's voice, which it clearly is not. Jclemens ( talk) 05:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also, go look at Category:Hate_speech. What's missing from there? Mein Kampf? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? If they're not included, it's a pretty good bet that this shouldn't be. Jclemens ( talk) 05:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- The book has been notably connected to the concept of hate speech, correct?
MagicatthemovieS (
talk) 05:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- I think that supports my argument.
MagicatthemovieS (
talk) 05:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- (ec)Looking at Google News,
this is the only thing in the category for this book. The Hill, considered reliable at
WP:RSP, doesn't describe the book as hate speech or containing hate speech, just notes that Amazon has a 'hate speech' category that this book was supposedly banned under.
Jclemens (
talk) 05:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)