Talk:Lori Gruen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hypatia controversy

There seems to be disagreement about how to write the section about the Hypatia dispute. An IP address claiming to be the subject has removed it twice and threatened legal action. [1][2]

Philosprey has made some changes, including adding a final response from one of the open letter's signatories. [3] This strikes me as an WP:UNDUE violation. There was an overwhelmingly negative reaction from reliable sources to the open letter and the associate editors' apology. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the mainstream view; significant minority views can be included but should not be presented as if on a par with the mainstream perspective. Therefore it really isn't appropriate to offer the last word to one of the letter's signatories. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

As there has been no response within 48 hours, I'm going to remove it. We include the critics' position by repeating their view that the article failed to engage sufficiently with scholars from the communities it discussed. To end the paragraph with a critic's perspective yet again would be to offer that position a dominant voice. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hypatia again

I would like to raise some concerns regarding the Hypatia section of Lori Gruen's Wikipedia page. Although everything in this page is cited, it includes much information that is not necessarily relevant to Gruen herself. The section clearly states that Gruen signed an open letter criticizing the Hypatia article in question. However, it also goes on to include information about criticism the article's author received on twitter and facebook which has nothing to do with Gruen. It also quotes a New York magazine reporter's opinion on the controversy. Although both the social media criticism occurred and the New York magazine reporter published this opinion, it seems unnecessary, off topic, and biased to include such information. I propose that these parts be removed, and that if it must remain, that the Hypatia section merely state Gruen's involvement and not include information about the controversy unrelated to the subject of the page. --Indiafdixon (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)indiafdixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiafdixon (talk • contribs) 04:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Indiafdixon, thanks for posting here. Regarding your removal of social media, that's an important part of what happened. The article and author were attacked on social media. In that atmosphere, an open letter began circulating. Several commentators referred to the situation as internet or online shaming.

For example, Rogers Brubaker wrote in The New York Times: "Nonetheless, the argument provoked outrage on social media. The article was deemed racist and transphobic, and one philosopher claimed that it not only 'perpetuates harm in numerous ways' but also 'enacts violence.' As in other cases of internet shaming, people who apparently had not read the offending article were eager to display their virtue by condemning it. An open letter calling for the article's retraction gathered more than 500 signatories."

To remove the reference to Facebook and Twitter is to miss the point about how it started. How would you suggest we phrase it to make it more acceptable to you? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I've restored social media, but I've otherwise shortened the paragraph. Let me know what you think. If the expansion of the article you intend to suggest turns out to be okay, that paragraph will be less prominent still. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this section seems highly inappropriate. Only one article mentions Gruen's name (the Intellegencer article from NY Mag's website, which seems to have a biased tone), and it mentions Gruen only once to say she was a signatory, and then says her name was removed from the letter by the next morning: That letter has racked up hundreds of signatories within the academic community — the top names listed are Elise Springer of Wesleyan University, Alexis Shotwell of Carleton University (who is listed as the point of contact), Dilek Huseyinzadegan of Emory University, Lori Gruen of Wesleyan, and Shannon Winnubst of Ohio State University. (Update: As of the morning of May 3, all the names had been removed from the letter. A note at the top of it reads "We have now closed signatories for this letter in order to send it to the Editor and Associate Editors of Hypatia.")

Given the lack of reliable sources concerning Gruen, I don't see how this could be considered relevant for Gruen's biography under WP:BLP. I understand the one editor is paid and has a COI, but I think they make a legitimate point about this being undue. I think the whole section should be removed, as even the first three sentences are all based on primary sources. If anything is mentioned about the transracialism article, I think it should be only that she had initially signed a letter calling for its retraction and then later removed her name from the letter, as that is the only information backed by a source that mentions Gruen. Additional information could be found in the main article about the controversy, but seems inappropriate and unsupported here. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the thing about the names being removed. The names were attached to the open letter until New York magazine published an article about what was happening. Then all the names were removed. Which three sentences are based on primary sources? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

As I stated, the name was removed the next morning after the NY Mag article was published online. Also, the names being removed isn't even mentioned in the current version of this Wikipedia article. The first three sentences of the "Hypatia" section are all primary sources: Gruen served as the co-editor of Hypatia, the feminist philosophy journal, from 2008 to 2010, and as a member of its board of associate editors from 2010 to 2015.[12] She edited two special editions of the journal: 25th Anniversary: Feminist Legacies/Feminist Futures (2010)[12][13] and, with Kari Weil, Animal Others (2012).[12][14] The journal published a symposium in 2017 on Gruen's idea of "entangled empathy"..

My point was how is this relevant for this biography if Gruen is only mentioned once in one article? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: primary sources, sorry, I thought we were discussing the second paragraph in that section. What do you see as the problem with using primary sources in the first paragraph?

As for the second, the reason this is mentioned in the article is that she was one of the earliest signatories (the fourth), and the most senior of the early signatures; she was the only full professor in the first 15 or so to sign. She was also on Tuvel's dissertation committee, and she was a former editor of Hypatia, so her signature was significant, which is perhaps why New York magazine mentioned it. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph being all primary sourced makes me question how relevant it is if none of that information is ever mentioned by secondary sources. As for the second paragraph, I think you are engaging in a lot of speculation and/or WP:OR (and I say that with a lot of respect for your (and C.Fred's) editing on this page and elsewhere), and while I understand that can be appropriate for talk page discussions to explain why information is relevant, I don't see how that would support anything other than a single sentence mentioning she signed a letter about the transracialism article and later her name was removed (and providing a wikilink for further information). Going any further on Gruen's biography when none of the other information is mentioned in connection with Gruen in the sources seems to be clear WP:SYNTH. If I am misinterpreting Wikipedia policies, I apologize and hope you can correct me. I am still working on understanding all of the policies and guidelines, as well as making myself clearer when discussing issues with other editors. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: first para, we would never remove from a bio that someone had been editor-in-chief of an academic journal just because it was based on primary sources. Feminist philosophy is a minority interest, and Hypatia isn't discussed much in secondary sources.

Re: second para, I don't mind cutting it right back if we can make it make sense. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you think of shortening to this: In April 2017, Hypatia published a peer-reviewed article comparing transgender and transracial identities. New York magazine reported that Gruen was a lead signatory of an open letter calling for the article's retraction, but that her name was removed the day after the magazine published criticism of the letter. Hypatia's editor-in-chief stood by the publication of the article. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood about the names being removed (all, not just hers); that's not relevant here. Apart from those words, I don't mind your version, or we could leave the two sentences I reduced the paragraph to. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should call her a "top signatory" unless we state in the body that was the description used by the New York magazine article. I would be fine with the current version if we removed the word "top" (and change the "note" into an ordinary citation). I think we should also remove the opinion article by Rogers Brubaker that does not mention Gruen. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

So we would end up with:

In April 2017, Hypatia published a peer-reviewed article comparing transgender and transracial identities. New York magazine reported that Gruen was a lead signatory of an open letter calling for the article's retraction. Hypatia's editor-in-chief stood by the publication of the article.

SarahSV ^(talk) 23:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that looks good if you agree. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, we have lift off! Thank you for writing it. You're welcome to add it if you want to. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Great. Thanks so much for helping me work on this. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. It has been a pleasure, and I'm very grateful for your input. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)