Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Lynn Conway |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 16:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved |
Dicklyon Andrea Parton BarbaraSue |
Mediator(s) | BrownHornet21 ( talk · contribs) |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Lynn Conway]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Lynn Conway]]
MarionTheLibrarian added to the Lynn Conway page information about Lynn Conway's participation in a controverisal issue. The sources included information published in peer-reviewed journal, the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Dicklyon believes that Archives ought not be considered a useable source, which produced an edit war; Dicklyon believes that the Archives is not neutral and therefore, not useable. The Conway page was protected by Dreadstar. On the talk page, Marion came to what Marion believed was a compromise solution. When the protection expired, Marion edited the page as per the apparent agreement.
Dick changed the content of the text that was suggested and discussed, reverting edits made by the three other editors who were entering information on the Conway page. Marion appealed to Dreadstar, who re-protected the page and recommended mediation processes.
BarbaraSue, a new editor, joined with Marion in similar edits here and at other biographies and related pages.
The central issue is whether the Archives of Sexual Behavior, and in particular Dreger's article in it, can be treated as appropriate and/or "neutral" in the way it is presented and cited.
That an outside opinion be provided and that the Conway page be edited accordingly.
Hi, I am the BrownHornet and I have taken this case. Let's keep the discussion on this mediation page. I have a few ground rules:
It's a pleasure to meet you, and your ground rules sound good to me.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
00:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(Gosh, I'm slow! Marion beat me here.) I'd like to invite all the parties above to provide their thoughts and comments. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 00:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I stumbled upon the big BBL controversy mess via the Lynn Conway article, and tried to temper things there a bit, but gave up. Now I'm just trying to prevent that controversy from spilling over too much onto the Conway bio; I'm into articles on technology and technologists, and care little about all this sexology stuff. It started on May 7, when I removed a weasel-worded allegation from the Conway bio, an item not supported by the cited New York Times article, that had been modified here to turn it into an attack on Conway, when it previously did not appear to be one. After I corrected this I found similar misrepresentations and biases on other pages, and started finding increasingly biased small changes by 99.231.67.224 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently an IP that then became WriteMakesRight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and then MarionTheLibrarian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). From the editing behavior, the POV was very clear, so I alerted the editor that having a POV is OK, but that in articles it is important to suppress it a bit and leave articles more balanced and neutral. I have not had any luck getting such a behavior change. Now, to the current issue: in the bio, Marion wants to cite the Dreger history of the controversy as if it is neutral or unbiased. I have no problem with citing it, but if we provide what Conway's attackers are saying, then we need to give at least equal space to what she is saying about them. I really didn't want to see the article expand in that direction, so I recommended a "main link" to the BBL controversy page, where everyone's views are well represented, and editors with strong POV on both sides are fighting it out. For the bio page of a technologist, trying to cover this messy controversy would require undue weight. I'd rather work on fleshing out her technical history, which I do have more info on if I ever get editing time without the article being locked. I got a bit done in the last few days, working around the repeated addition and removal of Dreger's side of the controversy. If it's not clear to anyone that Dreger is fully aligned with one side of the fight, and can not be used as the only source in a summary, I'll address that later. I've suggested that a short summary based on the New York Times article be included, with a link to the BBL controversy page, but Marian and Barbara seem to think that adding Dreger's rather negative take on Conway improves the article. I disagree. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be appropriate to extend this mediation to Andrea James and Deirdre McCloskey as well, as these are two other bios of participants in the BBL controversy that Marion is putting personal attacks into. For example, this diff, which I recently cleaned up after, includes Some scholars have likened James to "the Al Sharpton rather than the ML King sort" of activist and The New York Times reported that Bailey engaged in no wrong-doing, despite James' continuing accusations, both with citations to articles that do not in any way support these statements. In the same edit, we again get the famous Dreger citation, cited as if not biased: A comprehensive, documented history of James' role in the controversy concluded that James participated in generating false allegations against Bailey. In this diff and this, she does similarly on the Deirdre McCloskey bio (and had a bit of slip when doing it to Lynn Conway). The violations of WP:BLP to advance one side of a controversial argument by misrepresenting sources seems like way too much to me. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Dicklyon has not provided one iota of evidence that Dreger is actually biased in the meaningful sense of inaccurate in one direction. If Dreger conducted a good investigation and found that Conway, McCloskey, James et al. conspired to manufacture charges against Bailey, then this is clearly a huge revelation that deserves exposure on all their pages. I think she has conducted such an investigation with such conclusions. The conclusion that Dreger found against Conway et al., by itself, is irrelevant to the accusation of bias. I think that MarionTheLibrarian was being generous by referring to the critical commentaries of Dreger's article. In my opinion, these (including McCloskey's response) are of very low quality. However, it would probably be beyond Wikipedia's mandate to resolve that, so it's a good idea. Referencing the fact that a historian came to the conclusion that Conway et al., manufactured bogus charges (but that others have disputed this) certainly does not entail accepting that this is true. Leaving it out seems like censoring something very important. BarbaraSue ( talk) 22:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
For easier reference, here is the text I previously suggested putting on the Conway page:
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 23:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "the diffs"?
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
00:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It has been represented above that I object to Dreger's history being cited on WP:RS grounds; this is not the case; I think it is a fine reliable source, but that when used to represent what Dreger's conclusions and opinions are, it is a primary source. Marion may not understand that in wikipedia, secondary sources are strongly preferred; the NYT is a secondary source (as to whether it has gotten the facts and balance right in the case, I have no opinion, and it would not be useful to have one). My issues are with respect to WP:BLP, which is a very different standard; I haven't said that Dreger "cannot be cited"; rather, that her opinion cannot be presented in a bio without substantial neutral secondary sourcing and/or balancing with opinion on the other side. To have a cabal of editors with such an obvious strong POV editing bios this way, and not push back hard on them, would be irresponsible of me as a long-time wikipedia editor. As to whether Dreger can be considered neutral, anyone who has looked at her web site, or heard her join with Bailey in attacking Conway and James on the Forum program on NPR radio, could not possibly hold that view. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have now re-read
WP:BLP and
WP:Primary....
Dreger's article is therefore a valid (secondary) source by exactly the rule you have been advocating all along.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
01:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still trying to get my arms around the issue. That includes reading some of the sources at issue, including the NY Times article and Dreger article. (Okay, I'll be honest ... I'll peruse the Dreger article. It's 58 pages!) My initial take, in a nutshell:
MarionTheLibrarian,
Andrea Parton, and
BarbaraSue all believe the Dreger article is a
reliable source, and a
verifiable source that deserves a mention in the article. (BH21 Note: I struck
Andrea's name, because, after reviewing her edits, I'm not really sure what her position is on this issue.)
BrownHornet21 (
talk)
01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So Andrea Parton's opinion on the subject is...? BrownHornet21 ( talk) 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, Dicklyon feels that the Dreger article is biased, would affect the POV of the article, and including it in the article gives undue weight to someone who is primarily notable as a computer scientist. Including it will also lead to "equal space" editing to present contrary views to the Dreger article, which could (or inevitably will) lead to the topic dominating the article. Have I accurately summarized everyone's position? Or have I overstated, understated, simplified, or complicated your respective position? Feel free to correct and clarify. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 02:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 19:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We haven't heard from all the identified participants - namely, Andrea Parton. Feel free to continue participating in the discussion. After a couple of days, I'll start up on a mediator's proposal and invite comment on it. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
How's this?
I rearranged the text a little bit so that Conway's version and Dreger's version are accessible equally to each other (both from websites) and that the commentaries are accessible equally to each other (all requiring actual access to the journal). It cites both the NYTimes and the Archives so as to forstall the (probably inevitable) challenges it will undergo in the future from still more editors.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
19:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
She has been involved in the Bailey–Blanchard–Lawrence controversy over the controversial 2003 book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, and its author J. Michael Bailey and his supporters. [4] A history of the controversy was published by Alice Dreger, in which she concluded that Conway's actions amounted to a smear campaign against Bailey. [5] That history, along with multiple commentaries regarding both sides of the controversy, appear in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. [6] Conway's own account of the controversy includes Dreger and the editor of that journal as principals, along with Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence, all also on the editorial board of the journal. [7] [8]
You folks seemed to be headed in a very positive direction! My thoughts, before I saw your proposed revisions, was that it is fine to cite to Dreger's article as her article, as opposed to a group of scholars or as an "investigation." It's not an article by a group of scholars, it's just an article by Dreger. And, in my opinion, the word "investigation" conjures up something akin to the Warren Commission in the average person's mind. It might be overstating things a bit to call Dreger's article an "investigation"; it may be exhaustive, but in the end it's pretty much her opinion, and should be cited as such to be fair. But based on the proposed edits above, I think both of you are fairly close to agreement on that point. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 04:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC
By ROBIN WILSON (does not mention Conway)
There is nothing in the Chronicle about the part of the controversy involving Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The most problematic Wikipedia article, by the way,seems to be Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy. Some of the material cited there does not appear all that reliable, or is perhaps cited from web sites, not the original published sources. However, some of the references there may prove useful here. DGG ( talk) 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
BrownHornet21: Dicklyon and I appear to be in an edit war at WP:Archives of Sexual Behavior. Input (if approrpiate) would be appreciated.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
18:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Marion, what about reacting to my proposal above? Let's finalize this thing and move on. Are you saying you'd prefer to cite commentaries in the ASB for the other side? There seem to be a dozen or so that are quite critical of Dreger and supportive of the trans women; do we quote and cite some, or what? Make a proposal? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that citing the individual commentaries nor including all of the people or concepts that Conway dislikes are necessary or particularly relevant. There already exist many pages that address the scientific aspects that appear in Bailey's book. This is a bio page about Conway, and readers interested in the book/theory/controversy rather than in Conway herself can find it by following any of the several links/sources we have already included.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
14:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's how the suggestion above would look:
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"Believing" can be replaced with "accusing" using the same source. All of the links to those Chronicle articles have been available on Conway's site for several years, and I'm surprised that you would want to use what the Chronicle says that Conway says rather than what Conway herself says. Nonetheless, it is certainly your option.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
17:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
BrownHornet21: Do Dicklyon's anticipated changes seem to you like a move forward or backward in our effort to produce NPOV text?
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Forward -- it seems you're both fairly close to a resolution.
I actually think Proposal 4 reads the best, and is the most NPOV. If Conway's view can be cited to a better reference, such as a publication or article, great. But if not, I think citing her blog as a reference for her opinion is fine, per WP:BLP. I know Marion has an issue with citing to Conway's blog, but: (a) it is only cited for her opinion on her biography page (and maybe, perhaps, a few others that discuss this event in her life, which falls under WP:BLP in my opinion); and (b) I think Conway's view must be presented to balance the article and meet WP:BLP. You really can't present one opinion without the other. Keep 'em both, or lose 'em both. If you just keep the Dreger article and exclude Conway/James, et al., the reader is left with the impression that the controversy over Bailey's book is concluded, Bailey was right, Conway was wrong. But that's not accurate; violating the primary point of WP:BLP: "We must get the article right." I could also see removing both the Dreger ref and Conway blog ref, and just cite the reader to the BBL controversy page. I mean, it's seems somewhat beside the point to write that both sides insist that they are right. But if one wants to include the sentence about Dreger's article, one should also include a sentence about the disagreement with Dreger's opinion.
That's my two cents. Out of the options presented above, I think Proposal 4 is the most balanced, conservative, and neutral edit. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 23:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Dreger is an historian, she saw fit to call it a history in its title, and her coverage of the events earned her an award from the Guggenheim Foundation in their history category. What is the objective evidence for saying it's not a history?
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
01:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Proposal 6 is fine. If it all boils down to what to call Dreger's piece, I think "article" or "self-described 'history'" is fine, with a strong preference to call it an article. That's most NPOV in my opinion. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 19:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
See if this captures the latest comments. I changed "smear campaign" to "anti-Bailey campaign", in quotes since she called it that and since she didn't use the words "smear campaign" in the cited article. I would also be OK with "self-described 'history'" instead of just "article" since that makes it clear who is calling it a history, and it's not us. I moved "appear" to fix a number-agreement ambiguity. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why you say "it is also NPOV [sic I presume you mean POV] to give it less by withholding relevant information from readers." Many relevant things must generally be withheld; there's so much more we could say if we wanted to be more complete, but I think the goal here was to be brief and balanced. I think we could allow "review", but dignifying Dreger by calling her a historian, especially in relation to this piece, is certainly pushing the POV of one side again; the quotes below clearly illustrate that there is another POV on whether she's a historian; it's also not among the things she describes herself as on her about page:
Anyway, it is pretty conventional in wikipedia to suppress titles. Let just go with Alice Dreger and "review" and call it a day, shall we? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
She portrays herself repeatedly as writing ‘‘scholarly history’’ (the phrase is used four times, as though by saying that you are doing historical scholarship you can make it so). She needs to write, she says, because misunderstanding of the Bailey controversy ‘‘are adversely affecting many people’s lives and actions.’’ I am a historian. I asked Dreger to send the paper to me. She never did, even when it was finished, though she is proud that she ‘‘solicited responses to drafts from 12 transgender activists.’’ She would not—and she admits she would not— show me her work and allow me to criticize it, one historian to another. So she is able to characterize my views free of critique by the person most involved. ... That is how one might characterize Dreger’s tedious and tendentious ‘‘scholarly history.’’ Lengthy but shallow."
— "Politics in Scholarly Drag: Dreger’s Assault on the Critics of Bailey" by Deirdre McCloskey
Dreger describes herself as an historian, a bioethicist, and a ‘‘queer activist.’’ In this essay, she fails at all three. She has described the Bailey controversy myopically, without placing it in its larger sociocultural context. She ignores the history of queer activism and its relationship to psychiatry. She is particularly oblivious to changes in the emerging transgender movement. The transgender community, and the professionals who work within it, are in the midst of a revolution, but Dreger hasn’t noticed. Under a veneer of neutrality, Dreger has aligned herself with the conservative rearguard of professionals, not realizing that changes in the field are already rendering much of that rearguard obsolete. Bailey’s book has reinforced cultural stereotypes of male-to-female transsexuals, beginning with the demeaning cover. He maintains that transsexuals are motivated by lust, not gender identity issues, that transsexuals lie, and that they are drawn to shoplifting. He asserts that one ‘‘type’’ of transsexualism is in fact a ‘‘paraphilia,’’ linking some MTF transsexuals with ‘‘necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia’’ (p. 171) and that the members of the other ‘‘type,’’ homosexual transsexuals, ‘‘might be especially well-suited to prostitution’’ (p. 141). By not acknowledging that Bailey’s book panders to popular prejudice, Dreger shows an appalling lack of understanding...
— "Dreger on the Bailey Controversy: Lost in the Drama, Missing the Big Picture" by Margaret Nichols
Unfortunately, while Dreger describes her article as a ‘‘scholarly history,’’ it fails in this regard for numerous reasons, several of which I will address here. ... Because Dreger overlooks this background and power dynamic, her article is largely an ahistorical ‘‘scholarly history.’’ ... one cannot help but draw parallels between Dreger’s article and Bailey’s book: both are one-sided renditions of issues that critically impact trans people’s lives, both fail to take trans people’s concerns, objections, and differing perspectives seriously, and both are touted as authoritative accounts (Bailey’s as ‘‘science’’ and Dreger’s as ‘‘scholarly history’’), creating the impression that they are necessarily objective, well reasoned, and academi- cally valid, in opposition to the accounts of trans people, which are (by implication) irredeemably subjective, unrea- sonable, and academically invalid.
— "A Matter of Perspective: A Transsexual Woman-Centric Critique of Dreger’s ‘‘Scholarly History’’ of the Bailey Controversy" by Julia Serano
Dreger’s opening remarks gave me hope for someone to succeed where I failed. She suggests that a scholarly history could lessen persistent tensions. I admire interdisciplinary work and hoped for her success at combining psychology with history. But as I read the coming pages, disillusion grew. I realized that I had read it before; it rehashes the pro-autogynephilia side. How could someone with such scholarship in writing history be pulled so much by one side that she misses so much of the other? ... Dreger strings together facts, however circuitously, to incorporate the other side, to frame the history as the almost ‘‘Galileo-like’’ struggling of truth-seeking scientists against seemingly powerful ‘‘fundamentalists.’’ She notes the uniformity of opinion in the peer-reviewed psychology publications that support Blanchard’s model in a way that legitimates Bailey’s lack of serious consideration of alternatives. She does this despite how the ‘‘peers’’ who review (psychologists and psychiatrists) are likely others in the same position of enormous power to diagnosis and authorize HRT/SRS for the other peer group (transgendered persons). Dreger fails to note how this uniformity among peers is strikingly different from the vibrant ongoing debates in nearly every other research area of psychology. She does not consider shared biases by pro-autogynephilia researchers that may lead to their conformity.
— "A Social Psychology of a History of a Snippet in the Psychology of Transgenderism" by Madeline H. Wyndzen
That is an interesting suggestion. It is an accurate identifier. My general habit for people in interdisciplinary fields is to use whichever descriptor is most relevant to a given discussion. For example, a single person would be validly described as an inventor, a consultant, or a Professor of Physics depending on the context. Because Dreger chose the word history for her title and because the document itself won an award in the category of history, the designations "historian"/"history" seemed the most logical.
Nonetheless, "Alice Dreger, an intersex activist and Professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and Bioethics, published a review..." would be acceptable to me.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
12:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Back to DGG's suggestion - Dick, what are your thoughts on DGG's proposed solution? BrownHornet21 ( talk) 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Conway's article does not need a lengthy dissertation about Dreger's possible bias (or lack of bias). And (I thought) all we're down to is debating what to call Dreger. And I think "intersex activist and Northwestern University Professor" is a concise, neutral description of Dreger. Do you agree? BrownHornet21 ( talk) 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with BrownHornet21's suggestion. Just to be clear, this is the full version of what BrownHornet21 is suggesting, yes?:
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, this is my recommendation.
BrownHornet21 (
talk)
18:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Persistently inserting insinuations with regard to Zucker was inappropriate, persistently inserting insinuations regarding the Archives editorial board was inappropriate, and persistently inserting insinuations with regard to being at the same university while omitting all other information about prior relationships is inappropriate.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
23:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 15:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I discussed this with a colleague off-wiki to get another set of eyeballs on this issue. My colleague, like me, didn't know who any of the participants were beforehand. His only comment was that the special issue of the ASB seems to cited as showing both sides of the coin (although neither of us have reviewed the issue at question) - why mention Dreger's review above and beyond all others in the special issue? (In other words, why not just mention the special issue of the ASB and be done with it?) I couldn't really answer that, so I thought I'd present the same question here to Marion. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 18:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Two reasons: First, Dreger's article underwent standard peer review, but the commentaries did not. The commentaries are letters-to-the-editor. Second, the WP page we are discussing is about Conway, and the relevant portions of Dreger's article are about Conway; the commentaries, however, are about Dreger's article, not Conway. They remain relevant, of course, but are one step less relevant than is Dreger's article itself.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
19:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
We're starting to resemble trench warfare here. Proposals 11-13 are all fine with me. I think any of these versions are pretty close to one another in meeting WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The first sentence indicates that Conway is embroiled in a controversy; the second indicates that there is criticism of Conway's role in the controversy; and the third is the subject's retort to this criticism (which helps meet WP:BLP). If someone told me the decision is mine and mine alone, and I had to choose just one, I'd pick Proposal 11 (...surprised?). If you want additional opinions, maybe a another opinion is in order. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I am willing to accept the proposals made not only by myself, but also those made by DGG and by BrownHornet21. Dicklyon has not agreed to any proposal that he did not author himself (for whatever reasons). I do not believe that trench warfare accurately characterizes such a situation.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
20:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
BrownHornet21: Because Dicklyon has now been blocked for a few days (3RR on the Archives of Sexual Behavior page and what appears to be a consensus that his text there violated BLP), this will likely be my last post until he has the opportunity to respond.
I would, however, like to know if you believe his above response to you is satisfactory to you. You wrote Proposal 11 yourself; after reading Dicklyon's comment, has he convinced you that Proposal is biased? Although Dicklyon keeps saying that "Northwestern University Professor" (or her official departmental title) conveys more weight than "professor" (or other terms he prefers), I believe the relevant question is whether "Northwestern University Professor" etc. conveys more weight than Dreger merits according to verifiable and reliable sources. I believe that it's this latter question that should decide which descriptor is the appropriate one for WP.
On a practical note, how does one most the conversation on ANI to a place where it can continue rather than be frozen and archived?
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
23:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm back from my block; I promise not to edit war like that any more. To avoid "leakage" of this conflict onto other articles, we should go ahead and get it solved here, as more than one person has advised me. I had originally proposed that we "extend this mediation to Andrea James and Deirdre McCloskey," but that didn't get picked up; since then, TheLibrarian suggests something similar. So let's think of this problem more generally.
The problem, as I see it, is that the Dreger article is being cited to attack Conway, James, and McCloskey. That may be in retaliation for some other editors attacking the friends of Dreger, before I came on this scene. I responded badly, perhaps, by trying to balance the Dreger attack with information balancing it by calling its authority into question. It might be easier if we just don't talk about Dreger at all; or when we cite it and link it, always also cite and link a few of the commentaries that are accessible online.
As to the professor thing, it appears that Dreger is actually an assistant or associate professor (non-tenured, one would assume), depending on where you read. My concern, as always, is to not present Dreger's attacks on Conway as authoritative, in the face of plenty of evidence that her article was a very biased attack that has drawn a ton of informally published backlash, in addition to the backlash in the Archives. Is there a current/new proposal for how to proceed that addresses this basic BLP issue? If TheLibrarian wants to keep asserting that this controverisal paper is peer-reviewed and fact-checked, and therefore should be mentioned without mention of the other side of the argument, we'll remain stalemated; so let's get beyond that. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
If all of the above is agreeable to Dicklyon, then we can return to selecting/producing the most appropriate text, first for Conway’s page, and then for the related pages.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been reading slowly through all the material, which is why you haven't heard from me for a few days. :) Looking at the bio sources on Conway, I know how I would choose to expand the article. The biographical part needs a little expansion, and there is no need to avoid discussing her earlier identity--she has clearly & deliberately very publicly revealed almost all biographical detail that might be worth including. Conway's main notability is in computer science, as first a developer of software architecture, and then a pioneer in VLSI. This whole part seems to need much additional development--I think it will in the long run be considered it her main accomplishment, at least from the point of view of an encyclopedia.. This needs to be done by someone who understands the work better than I. Dicklyon would seem a natural for this, though of course it should be checked by someone else, since he has been associated with some of the work. Her secondary notability, which should not dominate the article, is her transgender activism in general. Her specific involvement in controversies about other people belongs with the discussion of the other people and should just be mentioned here. Trying to get it right in one place is sufficiently difficult.
With respect to the controversy in general, it is highly advisable not to let the controversy spread over into relatively unrelated articles. I consider it a warning signal when people try to bring her comments on other people into every possible relevant article.
There's another problem. The general tone of the controversy is remarkably vitriolic. Peoples' sense of identities are involved, and this is not conducive to dispassionate argumentation. Conway & others have has made extensive and poorly documented allegations of conspiracy and prejudice against a great many people and organisations. Conway is a very notable computer scientist, and her opinions on that subject are quotable. She is a widely respected writer on intersexuality M to F transsexuality, & I would consider her postings in fact usable for some aspects of the development of the subject, but she is not what one would call a dispassionate expert on the motivations and backgrounds and reputations of others. I do not think she can be quoted in this or other articles when she makes what we would normally regard as libellous accusations, unless they have been reported in unquestionably reliable and objective secondary sources--and then they should be quoted from there, not from her blogs or websites. (and similarly of course with others).
As I've said on the page on the journal, unless other good sources have reported it as a controversy, I dont see how we can use it--as for how to cite the journal, yes, BrownHornet21 's expert has it right. with respect to people in general, and specifically with reference to Dreger, it is relevant to say what university someone is a professor of , and of what subject--it's relatively meaningless to just say "professor". To be professor at some community college, means much less than at Northwestern. When one writes on sexuality, it matters what one's subject background is--it gives necessary context.
I might as well say that I have a great deal of sympathy with some of Conway's views, but I think she lacks some perspective about what would have been in the past regarded as nonhomophobic or nontransphobic. But that's my personal view, & I'm hardly an authority, and at any rate is not the issue here. I say it because on this matter I think I must make it clear to what extent I have a personal viewpoint--one can not investigate this without developing one.) I express my appreciation for the opportunity to learn about Conway's fascinating life & career, and I hope to see people here again, but on other subjects entirely. DGG ( talk) 02:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's still too heavy with the Dreger. Maybe this way will provide enough balance:
I've placed similar but abbreviated language into J. Michael Bailey#The Man Who Would Be Queen, but without the inline mention of Conway or McCloskey since it's his bio. This is to repair the damage that TheLibrarian shamelessly inflicted on that section as soon as I was blocked. See User talk:Dicklyon#TheLibrarian's rampage, which is hereby included by reference. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
To my eye, Proposal 15 is less balanced, not more. I appreciate that Dicklyon and I are unlikely to see neutral in the same text. Although he said said, many times, that I have a POV interfering with my edits, it is not difficult to recognize that it is in his personal interest to devalue Dreger in defense of Conway, whom Dicklyon has acknoweldged as being a friend of 30 years. In such a situation, the most logical course is to take more seriously the feedback from editors with no prior exposure to the topic, in this case DGG and BrownHornet21.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
16:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, phrases such as "the damage that TheLibrarian shamelessly inflicted on that section" are incivil. Please use lanugage more conducive to resolution.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
16:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sincerely unaware of what point you are trying to make, other than to express incivility. If you too are unable to separate the incivility from the point, then one would reasonably hypothesize that incivility was the point.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
21:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 21:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The parties have gone from arguing over a relatively minor distinction -- what to call Dreger (professor versus Northwestern University professor) -- to filing dueling complaints on the ANI and COI noticeboards, resulting in the editors focusing on each other rather than the content of the article.
I'll give this one more try and present a mediator's proposal to resolve dispute over the Lynn Conway article. The dispute initally centered on whether mentioning Dreger's article without mentioning a counterpoint would slant the article. We seemed to work past that, only to start getting derailed on relatively minor points. As I've said before, I doubt either editor will be 100% happy with the proposal. Wikipedia is not here to decide who is right and who is wrong in the Conway-Bailey dispute.
My disinterested take on this issue is this: (1) Conway is, first and foremost, a notable computer scientist and professor; (2) Conway took issue with Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen book; (3) Conway criticized Bailey; (4) Bailey cried foul, claiming that some of his critics (which may or may not include Conway) went overboard; (5) Conway disagreed with Bailey; (6) Bailey disagreed with Conway; and (7) the two sides have been fighting each other ever since.
I think several of the proposals above convey this sentiment. But for purposes of the mediator's proposal, I (still) suggest the following:
If you accept the mediator's proposal, please write the word Yes and sign your name. If you do not accept the mediator's proposal, please write the word No and sign your name. That's it. Thanks, BrownHornet21 ( talk) 04:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1. No. I agree completely with your 7-point summary of the story, and I wouldn't mind tellling it that way. What I mind is giving voice to Dreger's opinion as if it's sort of a neutral analysis; mentioning "both sides" when it is not clear that Dreger has taken one side and the other side is very anti-Dreger makes the passage misleading. That why I wanted to mention a title like "Dreger's Assault on the Critics of Bailey". Dicklyon ( talk) 06:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes. (I think BrownHornet21 wanted no commentary.)
I'm open to suggestion for what to do from here.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
13:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll neither confirm nor deny any such thing, and
WP:COI does not require that one does.
WP:COI requires that an editor be mindful of good faith feedback from uninterested editors. Thus far, I have accepted every suggestion made by BrownHornet21 and by DGG. Even when BrownHornet21 suggested that tsroadmap.com be treated as an RS, I indicated my willingness to go along with his suggestion despite my belief that it would be an error to break with WP policy to do so. Dicklyon, however, has disagreed with the proposals from our mediator, from DGG, and from the admin who warned Dicklyon that he was violating BLP (and 3RR), finally winding up blocked (for the third time) for edit warring. This suggests that it is Dicklyon who is unable to put WP's good above his own, not me.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
17:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me be sure I understand you correctly: You are saying that, even though WP:COI does not require that I disclose my identity, that you will engage in more disruptive editing if I do not reveal my identity? Is that actually what you are telling me?
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You can say that as many times as you like. WP:COI does not support you, however. To the extent that uninterested editors have expressed any opinion, they have agreed with my edits (and I theirs). You, however, have not endorsed any edit suggested by our mediator or by anyone else. That indicates that it is you who meets the WP:COI definition of COI, not I.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
14:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Questions for Both Sides
1. Do you think the "Dreger criticizes Conway/Dreger is a biased participant due to her affiliation with Bailey" specifically belongs on the Lynn Conway page, or on a page more devoted to the entire controversy, such as the BBL page (to which the Conway article links)?
2. Would you agree or disagree with the thought of the Dreger article itself as a "controversy-within-a-controversy?" The initial controversy revolved around Conway's criticism of Bailey's book. The sub-controversy is when Dreger published a self-described history of the controversy, which criticizes many folks' actions, inlcuding Conway; Dreger's review was met with numerous criticism and accusations of bias.
Just throwing these out there for discussion. I'm not giving up on you two just yet. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 03:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe we have settled, at User talk:DGG#Dicklyon/Marion case at WP:COIN. Neither of us will touch the section at issue in the Conway bio, or lots of other related articles. Agreed? Dicklyon ( talk) 14:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
No direct editing of controversy in:
No direct editing of:
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, then we're agreed. Hornet, if you would wrap up and request unprotect of Lynn Conway, we thank you. Dicklyon ( talk) 14:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Based on the parties' agreement in the above section, consider this mediation completed. Thanks to both of you for your efforts and patience. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the request to unprotect the article, I noticed the block ends on July 1. Since the clock is about to run out anyway on page protection, is there a reason to immediately request unprotection? BrownHornet21 ( talk) 18:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Makes no difference to me.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
18:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like PhilKnight has already unprotected the page. I suppose it doesn't take much beyond a few mouse clicks! :) BrownHornet21 ( talk) 18:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Lynn Conway |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 16:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved |
Dicklyon Andrea Parton BarbaraSue |
Mediator(s) | BrownHornet21 ( talk · contribs) |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Lynn Conway]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Lynn Conway]]
MarionTheLibrarian added to the Lynn Conway page information about Lynn Conway's participation in a controverisal issue. The sources included information published in peer-reviewed journal, the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Dicklyon believes that Archives ought not be considered a useable source, which produced an edit war; Dicklyon believes that the Archives is not neutral and therefore, not useable. The Conway page was protected by Dreadstar. On the talk page, Marion came to what Marion believed was a compromise solution. When the protection expired, Marion edited the page as per the apparent agreement.
Dick changed the content of the text that was suggested and discussed, reverting edits made by the three other editors who were entering information on the Conway page. Marion appealed to Dreadstar, who re-protected the page and recommended mediation processes.
BarbaraSue, a new editor, joined with Marion in similar edits here and at other biographies and related pages.
The central issue is whether the Archives of Sexual Behavior, and in particular Dreger's article in it, can be treated as appropriate and/or "neutral" in the way it is presented and cited.
That an outside opinion be provided and that the Conway page be edited accordingly.
Hi, I am the BrownHornet and I have taken this case. Let's keep the discussion on this mediation page. I have a few ground rules:
It's a pleasure to meet you, and your ground rules sound good to me.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
00:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(Gosh, I'm slow! Marion beat me here.) I'd like to invite all the parties above to provide their thoughts and comments. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 00:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I stumbled upon the big BBL controversy mess via the Lynn Conway article, and tried to temper things there a bit, but gave up. Now I'm just trying to prevent that controversy from spilling over too much onto the Conway bio; I'm into articles on technology and technologists, and care little about all this sexology stuff. It started on May 7, when I removed a weasel-worded allegation from the Conway bio, an item not supported by the cited New York Times article, that had been modified here to turn it into an attack on Conway, when it previously did not appear to be one. After I corrected this I found similar misrepresentations and biases on other pages, and started finding increasingly biased small changes by 99.231.67.224 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently an IP that then became WriteMakesRight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and then MarionTheLibrarian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). From the editing behavior, the POV was very clear, so I alerted the editor that having a POV is OK, but that in articles it is important to suppress it a bit and leave articles more balanced and neutral. I have not had any luck getting such a behavior change. Now, to the current issue: in the bio, Marion wants to cite the Dreger history of the controversy as if it is neutral or unbiased. I have no problem with citing it, but if we provide what Conway's attackers are saying, then we need to give at least equal space to what she is saying about them. I really didn't want to see the article expand in that direction, so I recommended a "main link" to the BBL controversy page, where everyone's views are well represented, and editors with strong POV on both sides are fighting it out. For the bio page of a technologist, trying to cover this messy controversy would require undue weight. I'd rather work on fleshing out her technical history, which I do have more info on if I ever get editing time without the article being locked. I got a bit done in the last few days, working around the repeated addition and removal of Dreger's side of the controversy. If it's not clear to anyone that Dreger is fully aligned with one side of the fight, and can not be used as the only source in a summary, I'll address that later. I've suggested that a short summary based on the New York Times article be included, with a link to the BBL controversy page, but Marian and Barbara seem to think that adding Dreger's rather negative take on Conway improves the article. I disagree. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be appropriate to extend this mediation to Andrea James and Deirdre McCloskey as well, as these are two other bios of participants in the BBL controversy that Marion is putting personal attacks into. For example, this diff, which I recently cleaned up after, includes Some scholars have likened James to "the Al Sharpton rather than the ML King sort" of activist and The New York Times reported that Bailey engaged in no wrong-doing, despite James' continuing accusations, both with citations to articles that do not in any way support these statements. In the same edit, we again get the famous Dreger citation, cited as if not biased: A comprehensive, documented history of James' role in the controversy concluded that James participated in generating false allegations against Bailey. In this diff and this, she does similarly on the Deirdre McCloskey bio (and had a bit of slip when doing it to Lynn Conway). The violations of WP:BLP to advance one side of a controversial argument by misrepresenting sources seems like way too much to me. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Dicklyon has not provided one iota of evidence that Dreger is actually biased in the meaningful sense of inaccurate in one direction. If Dreger conducted a good investigation and found that Conway, McCloskey, James et al. conspired to manufacture charges against Bailey, then this is clearly a huge revelation that deserves exposure on all their pages. I think she has conducted such an investigation with such conclusions. The conclusion that Dreger found against Conway et al., by itself, is irrelevant to the accusation of bias. I think that MarionTheLibrarian was being generous by referring to the critical commentaries of Dreger's article. In my opinion, these (including McCloskey's response) are of very low quality. However, it would probably be beyond Wikipedia's mandate to resolve that, so it's a good idea. Referencing the fact that a historian came to the conclusion that Conway et al., manufactured bogus charges (but that others have disputed this) certainly does not entail accepting that this is true. Leaving it out seems like censoring something very important. BarbaraSue ( talk) 22:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
For easier reference, here is the text I previously suggested putting on the Conway page:
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 23:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "the diffs"?
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
00:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It has been represented above that I object to Dreger's history being cited on WP:RS grounds; this is not the case; I think it is a fine reliable source, but that when used to represent what Dreger's conclusions and opinions are, it is a primary source. Marion may not understand that in wikipedia, secondary sources are strongly preferred; the NYT is a secondary source (as to whether it has gotten the facts and balance right in the case, I have no opinion, and it would not be useful to have one). My issues are with respect to WP:BLP, which is a very different standard; I haven't said that Dreger "cannot be cited"; rather, that her opinion cannot be presented in a bio without substantial neutral secondary sourcing and/or balancing with opinion on the other side. To have a cabal of editors with such an obvious strong POV editing bios this way, and not push back hard on them, would be irresponsible of me as a long-time wikipedia editor. As to whether Dreger can be considered neutral, anyone who has looked at her web site, or heard her join with Bailey in attacking Conway and James on the Forum program on NPR radio, could not possibly hold that view. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have now re-read
WP:BLP and
WP:Primary....
Dreger's article is therefore a valid (secondary) source by exactly the rule you have been advocating all along.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
01:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still trying to get my arms around the issue. That includes reading some of the sources at issue, including the NY Times article and Dreger article. (Okay, I'll be honest ... I'll peruse the Dreger article. It's 58 pages!) My initial take, in a nutshell:
MarionTheLibrarian,
Andrea Parton, and
BarbaraSue all believe the Dreger article is a
reliable source, and a
verifiable source that deserves a mention in the article. (BH21 Note: I struck
Andrea's name, because, after reviewing her edits, I'm not really sure what her position is on this issue.)
BrownHornet21 (
talk)
01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So Andrea Parton's opinion on the subject is...? BrownHornet21 ( talk) 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, Dicklyon feels that the Dreger article is biased, would affect the POV of the article, and including it in the article gives undue weight to someone who is primarily notable as a computer scientist. Including it will also lead to "equal space" editing to present contrary views to the Dreger article, which could (or inevitably will) lead to the topic dominating the article. Have I accurately summarized everyone's position? Or have I overstated, understated, simplified, or complicated your respective position? Feel free to correct and clarify. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 02:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 19:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We haven't heard from all the identified participants - namely, Andrea Parton. Feel free to continue participating in the discussion. After a couple of days, I'll start up on a mediator's proposal and invite comment on it. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
How's this?
I rearranged the text a little bit so that Conway's version and Dreger's version are accessible equally to each other (both from websites) and that the commentaries are accessible equally to each other (all requiring actual access to the journal). It cites both the NYTimes and the Archives so as to forstall the (probably inevitable) challenges it will undergo in the future from still more editors.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
19:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
She has been involved in the Bailey–Blanchard–Lawrence controversy over the controversial 2003 book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, and its author J. Michael Bailey and his supporters. [4] A history of the controversy was published by Alice Dreger, in which she concluded that Conway's actions amounted to a smear campaign against Bailey. [5] That history, along with multiple commentaries regarding both sides of the controversy, appear in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. [6] Conway's own account of the controversy includes Dreger and the editor of that journal as principals, along with Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence, all also on the editorial board of the journal. [7] [8]
You folks seemed to be headed in a very positive direction! My thoughts, before I saw your proposed revisions, was that it is fine to cite to Dreger's article as her article, as opposed to a group of scholars or as an "investigation." It's not an article by a group of scholars, it's just an article by Dreger. And, in my opinion, the word "investigation" conjures up something akin to the Warren Commission in the average person's mind. It might be overstating things a bit to call Dreger's article an "investigation"; it may be exhaustive, but in the end it's pretty much her opinion, and should be cited as such to be fair. But based on the proposed edits above, I think both of you are fairly close to agreement on that point. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 04:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC
By ROBIN WILSON (does not mention Conway)
There is nothing in the Chronicle about the part of the controversy involving Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The most problematic Wikipedia article, by the way,seems to be Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy. Some of the material cited there does not appear all that reliable, or is perhaps cited from web sites, not the original published sources. However, some of the references there may prove useful here. DGG ( talk) 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
BrownHornet21: Dicklyon and I appear to be in an edit war at WP:Archives of Sexual Behavior. Input (if approrpiate) would be appreciated.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
18:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Marion, what about reacting to my proposal above? Let's finalize this thing and move on. Are you saying you'd prefer to cite commentaries in the ASB for the other side? There seem to be a dozen or so that are quite critical of Dreger and supportive of the trans women; do we quote and cite some, or what? Make a proposal? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that citing the individual commentaries nor including all of the people or concepts that Conway dislikes are necessary or particularly relevant. There already exist many pages that address the scientific aspects that appear in Bailey's book. This is a bio page about Conway, and readers interested in the book/theory/controversy rather than in Conway herself can find it by following any of the several links/sources we have already included.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
14:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's how the suggestion above would look:
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"Believing" can be replaced with "accusing" using the same source. All of the links to those Chronicle articles have been available on Conway's site for several years, and I'm surprised that you would want to use what the Chronicle says that Conway says rather than what Conway herself says. Nonetheless, it is certainly your option.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
17:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
BrownHornet21: Do Dicklyon's anticipated changes seem to you like a move forward or backward in our effort to produce NPOV text?
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Forward -- it seems you're both fairly close to a resolution.
I actually think Proposal 4 reads the best, and is the most NPOV. If Conway's view can be cited to a better reference, such as a publication or article, great. But if not, I think citing her blog as a reference for her opinion is fine, per WP:BLP. I know Marion has an issue with citing to Conway's blog, but: (a) it is only cited for her opinion on her biography page (and maybe, perhaps, a few others that discuss this event in her life, which falls under WP:BLP in my opinion); and (b) I think Conway's view must be presented to balance the article and meet WP:BLP. You really can't present one opinion without the other. Keep 'em both, or lose 'em both. If you just keep the Dreger article and exclude Conway/James, et al., the reader is left with the impression that the controversy over Bailey's book is concluded, Bailey was right, Conway was wrong. But that's not accurate; violating the primary point of WP:BLP: "We must get the article right." I could also see removing both the Dreger ref and Conway blog ref, and just cite the reader to the BBL controversy page. I mean, it's seems somewhat beside the point to write that both sides insist that they are right. But if one wants to include the sentence about Dreger's article, one should also include a sentence about the disagreement with Dreger's opinion.
That's my two cents. Out of the options presented above, I think Proposal 4 is the most balanced, conservative, and neutral edit. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 23:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Dreger is an historian, she saw fit to call it a history in its title, and her coverage of the events earned her an award from the Guggenheim Foundation in their history category. What is the objective evidence for saying it's not a history?
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
01:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Proposal 6 is fine. If it all boils down to what to call Dreger's piece, I think "article" or "self-described 'history'" is fine, with a strong preference to call it an article. That's most NPOV in my opinion. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 19:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
See if this captures the latest comments. I changed "smear campaign" to "anti-Bailey campaign", in quotes since she called it that and since she didn't use the words "smear campaign" in the cited article. I would also be OK with "self-described 'history'" instead of just "article" since that makes it clear who is calling it a history, and it's not us. I moved "appear" to fix a number-agreement ambiguity. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why you say "it is also NPOV [sic I presume you mean POV] to give it less by withholding relevant information from readers." Many relevant things must generally be withheld; there's so much more we could say if we wanted to be more complete, but I think the goal here was to be brief and balanced. I think we could allow "review", but dignifying Dreger by calling her a historian, especially in relation to this piece, is certainly pushing the POV of one side again; the quotes below clearly illustrate that there is another POV on whether she's a historian; it's also not among the things she describes herself as on her about page:
Anyway, it is pretty conventional in wikipedia to suppress titles. Let just go with Alice Dreger and "review" and call it a day, shall we? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
She portrays herself repeatedly as writing ‘‘scholarly history’’ (the phrase is used four times, as though by saying that you are doing historical scholarship you can make it so). She needs to write, she says, because misunderstanding of the Bailey controversy ‘‘are adversely affecting many people’s lives and actions.’’ I am a historian. I asked Dreger to send the paper to me. She never did, even when it was finished, though she is proud that she ‘‘solicited responses to drafts from 12 transgender activists.’’ She would not—and she admits she would not— show me her work and allow me to criticize it, one historian to another. So she is able to characterize my views free of critique by the person most involved. ... That is how one might characterize Dreger’s tedious and tendentious ‘‘scholarly history.’’ Lengthy but shallow."
— "Politics in Scholarly Drag: Dreger’s Assault on the Critics of Bailey" by Deirdre McCloskey
Dreger describes herself as an historian, a bioethicist, and a ‘‘queer activist.’’ In this essay, she fails at all three. She has described the Bailey controversy myopically, without placing it in its larger sociocultural context. She ignores the history of queer activism and its relationship to psychiatry. She is particularly oblivious to changes in the emerging transgender movement. The transgender community, and the professionals who work within it, are in the midst of a revolution, but Dreger hasn’t noticed. Under a veneer of neutrality, Dreger has aligned herself with the conservative rearguard of professionals, not realizing that changes in the field are already rendering much of that rearguard obsolete. Bailey’s book has reinforced cultural stereotypes of male-to-female transsexuals, beginning with the demeaning cover. He maintains that transsexuals are motivated by lust, not gender identity issues, that transsexuals lie, and that they are drawn to shoplifting. He asserts that one ‘‘type’’ of transsexualism is in fact a ‘‘paraphilia,’’ linking some MTF transsexuals with ‘‘necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia’’ (p. 171) and that the members of the other ‘‘type,’’ homosexual transsexuals, ‘‘might be especially well-suited to prostitution’’ (p. 141). By not acknowledging that Bailey’s book panders to popular prejudice, Dreger shows an appalling lack of understanding...
— "Dreger on the Bailey Controversy: Lost in the Drama, Missing the Big Picture" by Margaret Nichols
Unfortunately, while Dreger describes her article as a ‘‘scholarly history,’’ it fails in this regard for numerous reasons, several of which I will address here. ... Because Dreger overlooks this background and power dynamic, her article is largely an ahistorical ‘‘scholarly history.’’ ... one cannot help but draw parallels between Dreger’s article and Bailey’s book: both are one-sided renditions of issues that critically impact trans people’s lives, both fail to take trans people’s concerns, objections, and differing perspectives seriously, and both are touted as authoritative accounts (Bailey’s as ‘‘science’’ and Dreger’s as ‘‘scholarly history’’), creating the impression that they are necessarily objective, well reasoned, and academi- cally valid, in opposition to the accounts of trans people, which are (by implication) irredeemably subjective, unrea- sonable, and academically invalid.
— "A Matter of Perspective: A Transsexual Woman-Centric Critique of Dreger’s ‘‘Scholarly History’’ of the Bailey Controversy" by Julia Serano
Dreger’s opening remarks gave me hope for someone to succeed where I failed. She suggests that a scholarly history could lessen persistent tensions. I admire interdisciplinary work and hoped for her success at combining psychology with history. But as I read the coming pages, disillusion grew. I realized that I had read it before; it rehashes the pro-autogynephilia side. How could someone with such scholarship in writing history be pulled so much by one side that she misses so much of the other? ... Dreger strings together facts, however circuitously, to incorporate the other side, to frame the history as the almost ‘‘Galileo-like’’ struggling of truth-seeking scientists against seemingly powerful ‘‘fundamentalists.’’ She notes the uniformity of opinion in the peer-reviewed psychology publications that support Blanchard’s model in a way that legitimates Bailey’s lack of serious consideration of alternatives. She does this despite how the ‘‘peers’’ who review (psychologists and psychiatrists) are likely others in the same position of enormous power to diagnosis and authorize HRT/SRS for the other peer group (transgendered persons). Dreger fails to note how this uniformity among peers is strikingly different from the vibrant ongoing debates in nearly every other research area of psychology. She does not consider shared biases by pro-autogynephilia researchers that may lead to their conformity.
— "A Social Psychology of a History of a Snippet in the Psychology of Transgenderism" by Madeline H. Wyndzen
That is an interesting suggestion. It is an accurate identifier. My general habit for people in interdisciplinary fields is to use whichever descriptor is most relevant to a given discussion. For example, a single person would be validly described as an inventor, a consultant, or a Professor of Physics depending on the context. Because Dreger chose the word history for her title and because the document itself won an award in the category of history, the designations "historian"/"history" seemed the most logical.
Nonetheless, "Alice Dreger, an intersex activist and Professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and Bioethics, published a review..." would be acceptable to me.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
12:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Back to DGG's suggestion - Dick, what are your thoughts on DGG's proposed solution? BrownHornet21 ( talk) 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Conway's article does not need a lengthy dissertation about Dreger's possible bias (or lack of bias). And (I thought) all we're down to is debating what to call Dreger. And I think "intersex activist and Northwestern University Professor" is a concise, neutral description of Dreger. Do you agree? BrownHornet21 ( talk) 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with BrownHornet21's suggestion. Just to be clear, this is the full version of what BrownHornet21 is suggesting, yes?:
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, this is my recommendation.
BrownHornet21 (
talk)
18:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Persistently inserting insinuations with regard to Zucker was inappropriate, persistently inserting insinuations regarding the Archives editorial board was inappropriate, and persistently inserting insinuations with regard to being at the same university while omitting all other information about prior relationships is inappropriate.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
23:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 15:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I discussed this with a colleague off-wiki to get another set of eyeballs on this issue. My colleague, like me, didn't know who any of the participants were beforehand. His only comment was that the special issue of the ASB seems to cited as showing both sides of the coin (although neither of us have reviewed the issue at question) - why mention Dreger's review above and beyond all others in the special issue? (In other words, why not just mention the special issue of the ASB and be done with it?) I couldn't really answer that, so I thought I'd present the same question here to Marion. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 18:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Two reasons: First, Dreger's article underwent standard peer review, but the commentaries did not. The commentaries are letters-to-the-editor. Second, the WP page we are discussing is about Conway, and the relevant portions of Dreger's article are about Conway; the commentaries, however, are about Dreger's article, not Conway. They remain relevant, of course, but are one step less relevant than is Dreger's article itself.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
19:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
We're starting to resemble trench warfare here. Proposals 11-13 are all fine with me. I think any of these versions are pretty close to one another in meeting WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The first sentence indicates that Conway is embroiled in a controversy; the second indicates that there is criticism of Conway's role in the controversy; and the third is the subject's retort to this criticism (which helps meet WP:BLP). If someone told me the decision is mine and mine alone, and I had to choose just one, I'd pick Proposal 11 (...surprised?). If you want additional opinions, maybe a another opinion is in order. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I am willing to accept the proposals made not only by myself, but also those made by DGG and by BrownHornet21. Dicklyon has not agreed to any proposal that he did not author himself (for whatever reasons). I do not believe that trench warfare accurately characterizes such a situation.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
20:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
BrownHornet21: Because Dicklyon has now been blocked for a few days (3RR on the Archives of Sexual Behavior page and what appears to be a consensus that his text there violated BLP), this will likely be my last post until he has the opportunity to respond.
I would, however, like to know if you believe his above response to you is satisfactory to you. You wrote Proposal 11 yourself; after reading Dicklyon's comment, has he convinced you that Proposal is biased? Although Dicklyon keeps saying that "Northwestern University Professor" (or her official departmental title) conveys more weight than "professor" (or other terms he prefers), I believe the relevant question is whether "Northwestern University Professor" etc. conveys more weight than Dreger merits according to verifiable and reliable sources. I believe that it's this latter question that should decide which descriptor is the appropriate one for WP.
On a practical note, how does one most the conversation on ANI to a place where it can continue rather than be frozen and archived?
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
23:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm back from my block; I promise not to edit war like that any more. To avoid "leakage" of this conflict onto other articles, we should go ahead and get it solved here, as more than one person has advised me. I had originally proposed that we "extend this mediation to Andrea James and Deirdre McCloskey," but that didn't get picked up; since then, TheLibrarian suggests something similar. So let's think of this problem more generally.
The problem, as I see it, is that the Dreger article is being cited to attack Conway, James, and McCloskey. That may be in retaliation for some other editors attacking the friends of Dreger, before I came on this scene. I responded badly, perhaps, by trying to balance the Dreger attack with information balancing it by calling its authority into question. It might be easier if we just don't talk about Dreger at all; or when we cite it and link it, always also cite and link a few of the commentaries that are accessible online.
As to the professor thing, it appears that Dreger is actually an assistant or associate professor (non-tenured, one would assume), depending on where you read. My concern, as always, is to not present Dreger's attacks on Conway as authoritative, in the face of plenty of evidence that her article was a very biased attack that has drawn a ton of informally published backlash, in addition to the backlash in the Archives. Is there a current/new proposal for how to proceed that addresses this basic BLP issue? If TheLibrarian wants to keep asserting that this controverisal paper is peer-reviewed and fact-checked, and therefore should be mentioned without mention of the other side of the argument, we'll remain stalemated; so let's get beyond that. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
If all of the above is agreeable to Dicklyon, then we can return to selecting/producing the most appropriate text, first for Conway’s page, and then for the related pages.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been reading slowly through all the material, which is why you haven't heard from me for a few days. :) Looking at the bio sources on Conway, I know how I would choose to expand the article. The biographical part needs a little expansion, and there is no need to avoid discussing her earlier identity--she has clearly & deliberately very publicly revealed almost all biographical detail that might be worth including. Conway's main notability is in computer science, as first a developer of software architecture, and then a pioneer in VLSI. This whole part seems to need much additional development--I think it will in the long run be considered it her main accomplishment, at least from the point of view of an encyclopedia.. This needs to be done by someone who understands the work better than I. Dicklyon would seem a natural for this, though of course it should be checked by someone else, since he has been associated with some of the work. Her secondary notability, which should not dominate the article, is her transgender activism in general. Her specific involvement in controversies about other people belongs with the discussion of the other people and should just be mentioned here. Trying to get it right in one place is sufficiently difficult.
With respect to the controversy in general, it is highly advisable not to let the controversy spread over into relatively unrelated articles. I consider it a warning signal when people try to bring her comments on other people into every possible relevant article.
There's another problem. The general tone of the controversy is remarkably vitriolic. Peoples' sense of identities are involved, and this is not conducive to dispassionate argumentation. Conway & others have has made extensive and poorly documented allegations of conspiracy and prejudice against a great many people and organisations. Conway is a very notable computer scientist, and her opinions on that subject are quotable. She is a widely respected writer on intersexuality M to F transsexuality, & I would consider her postings in fact usable for some aspects of the development of the subject, but she is not what one would call a dispassionate expert on the motivations and backgrounds and reputations of others. I do not think she can be quoted in this or other articles when she makes what we would normally regard as libellous accusations, unless they have been reported in unquestionably reliable and objective secondary sources--and then they should be quoted from there, not from her blogs or websites. (and similarly of course with others).
As I've said on the page on the journal, unless other good sources have reported it as a controversy, I dont see how we can use it--as for how to cite the journal, yes, BrownHornet21 's expert has it right. with respect to people in general, and specifically with reference to Dreger, it is relevant to say what university someone is a professor of , and of what subject--it's relatively meaningless to just say "professor". To be professor at some community college, means much less than at Northwestern. When one writes on sexuality, it matters what one's subject background is--it gives necessary context.
I might as well say that I have a great deal of sympathy with some of Conway's views, but I think she lacks some perspective about what would have been in the past regarded as nonhomophobic or nontransphobic. But that's my personal view, & I'm hardly an authority, and at any rate is not the issue here. I say it because on this matter I think I must make it clear to what extent I have a personal viewpoint--one can not investigate this without developing one.) I express my appreciation for the opportunity to learn about Conway's fascinating life & career, and I hope to see people here again, but on other subjects entirely. DGG ( talk) 02:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's still too heavy with the Dreger. Maybe this way will provide enough balance:
I've placed similar but abbreviated language into J. Michael Bailey#The Man Who Would Be Queen, but without the inline mention of Conway or McCloskey since it's his bio. This is to repair the damage that TheLibrarian shamelessly inflicted on that section as soon as I was blocked. See User talk:Dicklyon#TheLibrarian's rampage, which is hereby included by reference. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
To my eye, Proposal 15 is less balanced, not more. I appreciate that Dicklyon and I are unlikely to see neutral in the same text. Although he said said, many times, that I have a POV interfering with my edits, it is not difficult to recognize that it is in his personal interest to devalue Dreger in defense of Conway, whom Dicklyon has acknoweldged as being a friend of 30 years. In such a situation, the most logical course is to take more seriously the feedback from editors with no prior exposure to the topic, in this case DGG and BrownHornet21.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
16:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, phrases such as "the damage that TheLibrarian shamelessly inflicted on that section" are incivil. Please use lanugage more conducive to resolution.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
16:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sincerely unaware of what point you are trying to make, other than to express incivility. If you too are unable to separate the incivility from the point, then one would reasonably hypothesize that incivility was the point.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
21:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 21:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The parties have gone from arguing over a relatively minor distinction -- what to call Dreger (professor versus Northwestern University professor) -- to filing dueling complaints on the ANI and COI noticeboards, resulting in the editors focusing on each other rather than the content of the article.
I'll give this one more try and present a mediator's proposal to resolve dispute over the Lynn Conway article. The dispute initally centered on whether mentioning Dreger's article without mentioning a counterpoint would slant the article. We seemed to work past that, only to start getting derailed on relatively minor points. As I've said before, I doubt either editor will be 100% happy with the proposal. Wikipedia is not here to decide who is right and who is wrong in the Conway-Bailey dispute.
My disinterested take on this issue is this: (1) Conway is, first and foremost, a notable computer scientist and professor; (2) Conway took issue with Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen book; (3) Conway criticized Bailey; (4) Bailey cried foul, claiming that some of his critics (which may or may not include Conway) went overboard; (5) Conway disagreed with Bailey; (6) Bailey disagreed with Conway; and (7) the two sides have been fighting each other ever since.
I think several of the proposals above convey this sentiment. But for purposes of the mediator's proposal, I (still) suggest the following:
If you accept the mediator's proposal, please write the word Yes and sign your name. If you do not accept the mediator's proposal, please write the word No and sign your name. That's it. Thanks, BrownHornet21 ( talk) 04:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1. No. I agree completely with your 7-point summary of the story, and I wouldn't mind tellling it that way. What I mind is giving voice to Dreger's opinion as if it's sort of a neutral analysis; mentioning "both sides" when it is not clear that Dreger has taken one side and the other side is very anti-Dreger makes the passage misleading. That why I wanted to mention a title like "Dreger's Assault on the Critics of Bailey". Dicklyon ( talk) 06:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes. (I think BrownHornet21 wanted no commentary.)
I'm open to suggestion for what to do from here.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
13:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll neither confirm nor deny any such thing, and
WP:COI does not require that one does.
WP:COI requires that an editor be mindful of good faith feedback from uninterested editors. Thus far, I have accepted every suggestion made by BrownHornet21 and by DGG. Even when BrownHornet21 suggested that tsroadmap.com be treated as an RS, I indicated my willingness to go along with his suggestion despite my belief that it would be an error to break with WP policy to do so. Dicklyon, however, has disagreed with the proposals from our mediator, from DGG, and from the admin who warned Dicklyon that he was violating BLP (and 3RR), finally winding up blocked (for the third time) for edit warring. This suggests that it is Dicklyon who is unable to put WP's good above his own, not me.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
17:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me be sure I understand you correctly: You are saying that, even though WP:COI does not require that I disclose my identity, that you will engage in more disruptive editing if I do not reveal my identity? Is that actually what you are telling me?
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You can say that as many times as you like. WP:COI does not support you, however. To the extent that uninterested editors have expressed any opinion, they have agreed with my edits (and I theirs). You, however, have not endorsed any edit suggested by our mediator or by anyone else. That indicates that it is you who meets the WP:COI definition of COI, not I.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
14:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Questions for Both Sides
1. Do you think the "Dreger criticizes Conway/Dreger is a biased participant due to her affiliation with Bailey" specifically belongs on the Lynn Conway page, or on a page more devoted to the entire controversy, such as the BBL page (to which the Conway article links)?
2. Would you agree or disagree with the thought of the Dreger article itself as a "controversy-within-a-controversy?" The initial controversy revolved around Conway's criticism of Bailey's book. The sub-controversy is when Dreger published a self-described history of the controversy, which criticizes many folks' actions, inlcuding Conway; Dreger's review was met with numerous criticism and accusations of bias.
Just throwing these out there for discussion. I'm not giving up on you two just yet. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 03:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe we have settled, at User talk:DGG#Dicklyon/Marion case at WP:COIN. Neither of us will touch the section at issue in the Conway bio, or lots of other related articles. Agreed? Dicklyon ( talk) 14:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
No direct editing of controversy in:
No direct editing of:
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, then we're agreed. Hornet, if you would wrap up and request unprotect of Lynn Conway, we thank you. Dicklyon ( talk) 14:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Based on the parties' agreement in the above section, consider this mediation completed. Thanks to both of you for your efforts and patience. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the request to unprotect the article, I noticed the block ends on July 1. Since the clock is about to run out anyway on page protection, is there a reason to immediately request unprotection? BrownHornet21 ( talk) 18:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Makes no difference to me.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
18:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like PhilKnight has already unprotected the page. I suppose it doesn't take much beyond a few mouse clicks! :) BrownHornet21 ( talk) 18:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)