![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why remove all mention of this controversy? I tried to make the brief mention balanced and well sourced, without POV, and since you didn't attempt a change, Marion, I can't tell what aspect of you felt was "POV". I'll put it back and give you a chance to tweak it so we can see what you're thinking. Dicklyon (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That leaves nothing meeting WP criteria for inclusion. Because we are already in mediation for an issue that overlaps this one, it might be appropriate to leave this issue until that one is solved.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not the case that "the proof is in the citations." What you are calling proof is your interpretation of what is in the citations. Moreover the statement you are trying to make requires combining information from one place (who is on the Archives' editorial board) with information from other places (Dreger's history and Conway's claims). Such combinations of information from multiple sources constitutes WP:OR. Moreover, the contents of Conway's blog do not meet the criteria for WP:RS. I suggest you seek a third opinion.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The insertion of material accusing the editor(s) of this journal for without specific citation of reliable sources to that effect is a clear violation of WP:BLP. It must not remain. I further warn against 3RR--but that is relatively minor in the circumstances) DGG (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
((cite web))
: Text "date: 2/27/08" ignored (help) Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Since I assumed Editorship of the Journal in 2002, we have published four peer-reviewed target articles on controversial topics, followed by peer commentaries, and a reply by the target article authors. The first two target articles were about pedophilia (Green, 2002; Schmidt, 2002), the third target article was about sexual orientation change (Spitzer, 2003), and the fourth target article was about the sexual dysfunction diagnosis of dyspareunia (Binik, 2005). ... The target article by Dreger in this issue follows this newly spawned tradition.
— Kenneth Zucker, editor, ASB
It is incomplete to characterize that it had been pointed out only once that there was a POV problem. I indicated it on the Archives page,[4] on this talk page here[5] and here,[6] and on our moderated discussion page.[7] Our mediator, BrownHornet21, agreed with me here.[8]
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC
Removing mention of criticism of Alice Dreger is good and necessary for BLP reasons given the poor sourcing. But as it stands, the section is still problematic since it alleges a controversy where none is establishes. The fact that there is a controversy about J. Michael Bailey and his book is established by the journal article. The fact that an article appeared in this journal about the controversy is also clearly established. The relevance of this to this wikipedia article which is about the journal is not however established. A controversy about a member the editorial board in his independent work does not create a controversy about the journal unless sources establish it has, which none appear to do (I haven't read the journal article in question so I'm simply presuming it doesn't mention anything about this). If you don't understand, then let me explain... The fact that a journal has an article about something, is not relevant to the wikipedia journal article unless there is a reason it is. The journal must have published thousands of articles, there's no reason to mention any specific one unless it is unduly noteable for some reason. Note this is in reference to this wikipedia article only. The sources appear to establish a controversy exist about J. Michael Bailey and his book, and I would suspect there is sufficient sourcing for at least brief mention in our respective articles on these (the book and the person) Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you entirely. There is another editor who may want to re-include that information once he returns from being blocked, but I think it is appropriate to remove the text for the reasons you outline until/unless someone can sufficiently justify its inclusion on this particular page.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I serve on the editorial board for Archives and several other journals in sexology.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the original study that is cited, the 89.5% only applies to the ~433 Amazon MTurk participants. It does not apply to the ~300 college-age students they also recruited for the study. Not to mention, MTurk recruitment may have a selection bias. The source study is just poorly written when it asserts that “the typical OF user is … married (89.5%)”. Seems like sloppy wording if not sloppy science. Can someone put in a correction? I’m not a wikipedia contributor. 107.3.134.197 (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)