Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen/Archive 10

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

DarlieB's investigation issues

Darlie, I've reverted your POV-pushing slam on Dreger's (and Carey's) work. You can't simply assert that you personally believe that Dreger and Carey were negligent and didn't bother to do any investigation. You need to provide a reliable source that says this. In the absence of such a source, we have to assume that Dreger and Carey both did a normal amount of research. Certainly Carey's job was hampered by the refusal of several prominent activists to speak to him, but that's not sufficient justification to declare that the work was "unverified". You might also wish to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia says about using POV-pushing words like "she alleges".

You have two requests on this page for someone to prove that Dreger and Carey did their jobs properly. This is not how Wikipedia works. WP:V says that it's your job to prove that the existing reliable sources have the faults that you find in them -- not for other editors to prove that articles in the academic journals and major newspapers performed to the standard that you personally would have preferred. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore WhatamIdoing's edit is more a more neutrally worded and in accord with policy. On top of that it states that the sexual allegation is "unsupported by evidence" that's actually more favorable than writing that she says it didn't happen. There is a crucial difference there. Afterall Monica Lewinski's allegations were unsupported until a certain dress showed up.--Hfarmer (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Doit. I welcome the inquiry. It's not POV . Dregers results are not verifiable nor were they part of any official investigation. Point me to the repeatable evidence rather than Alice Dregers opinion. Source it. Lewinski is irrelevant since there is no evidence of any Dreger investigation, just her opinion. Source the official investigation and it's verified evidence or delete all of Dregers opinion. This is supposed to be about the book and you all are making it a Dreger POV article DarlieB (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
For WhatamIdoing. Was Dreger part of an official investigation ? No. Was her expertise in investigations ? No. Has anyone else verified her findings ? No. So what you are laying out in the court of public opinion is one persons unqualified , unverified opinion in a field where she has no history nor proven expertise. Nice job . Brilliant. If this section is allowed to even stay it will be with the qualification that she is unofficial and unverified. Otherwise it will be completely deleted. Alice Dreger is not a credible source on this subject.DarlieB (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outendenting) Let's cut through all of this static and misconception about what Dreger actually said and look at what is said. On page 41 of the PDF page 406 in the journal second column of Dreger's paper she writes this....

....1998, when she claims the relations happened. Even after this conclusion, the curious may still wish I could tell them for sure whether the alleged sexual relations happened. I must leave it to readers to make what they will of what I have uncovered regarding the nature and timing of Juanita’s story (or stories), and to also decide what to make of the roles of Conway, James, and McCloskey in the formal production and broadcasting of the injurious claim. From the vantage point of this inquirer, it certainly looks as if the allegation—particularly the choice of the conveniently vague phrasing ‘‘sexual relations’’ combined with otherwise highly specific details about the when, the where, and the who of the supposed event—amounted to a trumped-up attempt on the part of a small circle of Bailey’s transwomen critics to damage his professional reputation. To some extent, it worked, in large part because it cleverly took advantage of the sex-negative attitude that pervades American culture, including the particular cultural phobias that surround transwomen such as Juanita. As Bailey remarked to me, ‘‘it was deeply ironic that Conway et al. were trying to sensationalize sex with transsexuals,’’ but it seemed they would do even that to try to get back at Bailey for the claims he made in his book (Bailey to Dreger, p.e.c., July 19, 2006).

With respect to the sexual relations allegation she does not conclude that the relations did or did not happen. To say that Dreger found the allegation to be unsupported by evidence is to me a good way to summarize in a sentence all of the above. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting that. I might summarize it a bit differently: "Dreger says she has no idea what really happened, but expressed the opinion that the transwomen were really nasty to Bailey." I think that's a more accurate reading of what she actually wrote in her peer-reviewed paper. , or at least the paragraph you quote above. Does anyone disagree? Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Let me write this. "Dreger's investigation of the allegation of "sexual relations with a research subject" concluded that sex may have happend, but if it did the person in question was not in fact a research subject." Is that not what Dreger found? --Hfarmer (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you quote the bit that this summarizes? It's not the bit you quote above. Dicklyon (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think that any of this matters. We have two high-quality sources -- an article in a major newspaper, and an article in a respected academic journal -- that provide this information. We've met the requirements of Wikipedia's policies. DarlieB, on the other hand, is trying to frame these high-quality sources as being biased and unreliable -- solely on the basis of unsourced personal beliefs. Let's step away from trying to figure out what's True™: DarlieB's edits do not tell us what is verifiable.
Note, please, that this information is not presented as the Truth™: we merely claim that "According to Dreger," this is the case. (We could, of course, have handled it differently to make exactly the same point without reference to Dreger: We could have cited the original source and said that a complaint filed in 2003 alleged improper sexual relations in 1998.)
And Dick, I do encourage you to actually read Dreger's paper. Go into it with an open mind and form your own judgment about the level of work that Dreger did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
As I said, there may be pieces of it that I haven't read, but I don't feel like doing the whole thing front to back at this point. I've been pretty much over it all. As to the opinion being verifiable, I agree. I still suggest that the article would be improved by also including an opinion on the other side, eg from one of the commentaries. Maybe John Bancroft's "contrary to what Dreger was quoted as saying in the New York Times, I do not feel that this needs to have a major negative impact on scientific discourse; it might even improve it." Or something like that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Since when did a newspaper, that had done NO INVESTIGATION AT ALL become a "hi quality source" by "quoting" Alice Dreger ? I've been quoted in newspaper numerous times and RARELY have those quotes been accurate nor am I an "expert ". I'm not saying they are "bias" , I am saying they are a nonparticipant and that quoting Dreger as an an observer does not validate her words . You are trying to make them into an investigating body and source on their own when they aren't. Dregers OPINION that this is an academic freedom issue is even in question since her OPINION is not even official nor was her informal history publication collaborated by any other source ( since all the records are private and no one can get access to them ) . She has no expertise as an investigator PERIOD! And let me repeat, this article is about the book, NOT BAILEY . Baileys only defender is not even defending about his book, her guesswork is about Bailey himself. Stop trying to force this into the book section. Go to the article on Bailey and write all the factless baloney you want.DarlieB (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC).
DarlieB, where's the proof that The New York Times didn't do an adequate amount of investigation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Where is the proof that the NYT's DID ANY INVESTIGATION AT ALL WAID ?! Like some Christian wanting to prove god exists without proof you say "Where is your proof god DOESN'T exist "?! No, the burdens on you ! Even Dreger says she doesn't know and she was the only one doing an amateur examination of the subject . For a good part of this year this article has been full of this kind of misrepresentation of who was investigating. You all have been trying to force Dreger's opinion in here over and over when it's "OPINION" , not fact. You said :

"Let's step away from trying to figure out what's true: DarlieB's edits do not tell us what is "

All I care is what meets the standards of an honest presentation of facts. You have been allowed to unfairly portray this as academic and intellectual freedom when no one stopped the book from being published at all. Since Northwestern's investigation into Bailey was totally closed and he claims his loss of position was not due this case just how was his freedom of speech removed ? On the one hand he claims damage on the other he said it had no effect. Which is it ? And Dreger tried to get Andrea James speaking engagement there killed , is this the champion of open discourse ? All academics have a responsibility to their theories with an understanding of what damage could be done . Baileys work was fairly academically challenged by people/victims who found it offensive . People like Lynn Conway have been Libeled in my opinion and Alice Dreger's words fall like a house of cards in the wind. Every single day academics without a sensationalist theory to promote are promoted or lose their jobs based on their work. I find it humorous to think that an some in the academic establishment really believe 3 transwomen brought down this established academic. That's where I've heard it all. The guts it takes to present that kind of frivolous accusation falls into the realm of a bitter losers who can't believe that the truth is the truth. At this point I'm thinking of removing Alice Dreger completely because she not only has no proof but there are 23 academics cited that directly challenge her. How is it it is only her quotes that have been printed here over the last year ???? What irks me most of all is that it is assumed that Dreger's words held the truth without a shred of evidence . It is my opinion that this was only possible because her opponents were not in the "norm" club. DarlieB (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DarlieB, you seem to misunderstand. All I care about is compliance with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. The point is not Truth™. It's verifiability. We don't have to "prove" that a journalist published in The New York Times and International Herald-Tribune did "ANY INVESTIGATION AT ALL". We only have to prove that it was published in a widely respected media source.
Having said that, how Carey could interview so many people and still be charged with not doing any investigation is beyond me. Did Carey not interview McCloskey? Did he not repeatedly ask Conway for interviews? Did he not, in fact, talk to several people from both "sides" of the scandal and others that had no connection at all? Is that "no investigation at all"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


If you cared about Wikipedia's fundamental policies then you violated "Do no harm " right from the beginning. I've been here long enough to know the accusations of a "conspiracy " of transsexuals quoted in Dreger's fantasy article violates " Do no Harm " as did false accusations and intentional edits out of context against Andrea James. It's a one sided accusation festival without a fair hearing and this wont be tried in the court of public opinion without balance. Being" quoted in a NYT article" is a far cry from the absolute lie that it was "investigated by the NYT ". I had been deleting since the beginning. It doesn't matter even the slightest bit that Dreger was quoted in the NYT's because Dreger is a unofficial amateur with no credentials in investigation, no access to the records and or people involved beyond Bailey AND SHE'S NOT EVEN DEFENDING BAILEYS BOOK ! She has some made up story about transsexuals getting a professor fired when EVEN BAILEY SAYS HE DIDN'T RESIGN BECAUSE OF THEM ! Shessh.You have no basis whatsoever to include her ravings here other than your own POV. She is not backed up by anyone or any fact whatsoever. DarlieB (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research/synthesis about IRBs

WhatamIdoing has been opining a lot about the "chilling effects on free speech, as measured in costs of human spirit," etc. I argue that all this stuff added to this article is WP:OR, specifically WP:SYN-- rhetoric to make it sound as if this issue is settled. WAID cites a Wilson Chronicle article, which says:

The IRB determines whether a professor needs to obtain the informed consent of research subjects. That involves telling the subjects the purpose of the research, as well as its potential risks and benefits to them.
In a telephone interview, Mr. Bailey said he did not want to talk about the two women's assertions. But in an e-mail message to The Chronicle, the professor wrote that he had "never considered Anjelica et al. research subjects." He added: "I was writing about my own life experiences among transsexual women."
The jacket of Mr. Bailey's book, however, directly contradicts that statement. It says the work is "based on his original research" and is "grounded firmly in the scientific method."

Further, several of the commentaries on the Dreger "history" (which are being generally suppressed here) indicate that the debate is not settled, even though WAID seems to think it is. Wikipedia articles should report the actual status of such debates, specifically in this article as it pertains to the book. Northwestern has made statements regarding these matters, but have only discussed the "federal definition" and made no comment on any other definitions. If we are going to have information in here about the IRB complaints (which is fine), we should not be coming to our own conclusions and should report the range of published opinions. Jokestress (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that IRB activity is a matter of federal regulation? The federal definition, as understood and enforced by OHRP, is the only definition that can possibly matter for IRBs. Note that "IRB-qualified" has absolutely nothing to do with other concepts, such as "ethics" and "appropriateness". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I recommend that other editors read the entire piece, and not just selected quotes. It's available online (search on the title). The part I found most interesting was this:

Many scholars believe that IRB's, which were originally established to oversee medical research, have overstepped their bounds. "My concern is the mission creep of IRB's into the social sciences and even the humanities," says Matthew Finkin, a professor of law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Mr. Finkin says that applying a biomedical model to other disciplines creates problems.
Joan C. Sieber, a professor of psychology at California State University at Hayward and an expert on how IRB's operate, shares Mr. Finkin's concerns. She says it sounds as if Mr. Bailey's critics are using IRB regulations "as a tool" to attack him.

As I read it, that's two people with excellent credentials for having an opinion on the proper range of IRB regulation, and both of them (representing, by the way, 100% of independent people in the article) consider the application of IRB rules to chatting with people in a bar to be highly suspect (although Sieber thinks that Bailey should have let the IRB tell him that it was unnecessary). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
And Sieber's viewpoint was also shared by several people in the 2008 peer commentaries, which is why we should include it here. As Moser said (I believe you quoted him on one of these pages recently) "the allegations were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct." That viewpoint has always seemed relevant and worthy of note in this article. The IRB aspect was only part of the reason all this happened. The ethics of gatekeeping in exchange for personal gain was also at issue. Jokestress (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This section is really WhatamIdoing's doings. Completely synthesized. The recently added "sourced" statements are crazy; the first, "Whether federal regulations required professors to obtain formal approval from a university Institutional Review Board (IRB) before interview people was uncertain at the time," being totally her own interpretation of the Robin Wilson article, not something the article says, and the second, "the US Department of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the Oral History Association and American Historical Association, issued a formal statement that taking oral histories, unstructured interviews (as if for a piece of journalism), collecting anecdotes, and similar free speech activities do not constitute IRB-qualified research, and were never intended to be covered by clinical research rules," being true and well sourced but without any source to say that its relevant to the topic under discussion. Sure, it's OK for her to read it as being obviously related; it's just not OK to build a wikipedia article on that interpretation. Dicklyon (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Again Dick let me refer you to WP:NOTOR which is the general wikipedia communities consensus on how to interpret that policy. All whatamIdoing has done is summarize information and gather it under a common heading. There is no regulation that says that every thing in an artcile must be a quote. None at all. Take a note from Jokestress about how to go about this.
Aj in your absensce we went through another Reliable source notice board round over these peer commentaries. This was done because in your absense Dick and a few other users brought up that issue again. Do you want to have another go at it? As I did with DickLyon I would remind you that both the first and second times I argued for the inclusion of those commentaries IF we use them to characterize the commentors reactions to the book and Dreger's article they should be included. A sort of extended use of the BLP policy towards reliable sources. Such was my arguement. This time the only uninvolved editors who supported inclusion of the commentaries did so based on the assumption that the commentators were all other academic experts in the field. Which is not true in this case and it would not be right to get inclusion based on a falsehood.
However... well let's look at this from the perspective of James Cantor. Which is that this was an open call and that literally anyone could have written a commentary. You know I read Dr. Conway's website on a somewhat regular basis, about once a month if not more often. I saw that these commentaries were being requested there. I sent an email offering to write a commentary and recieved no response. (I felt that was propper because of how I am positioned in all of this. In proximity to all these goings on, and writing the Wikipedia articles on the topic which were briefly mentioned. I was going to take the position that people on both sides have behaved badly. As well as express what I thought about the sexual allegations, Likley talk about the effect this book had on online conversations, how battle lines were drawn.) Suppose I had just went ahead and sent a commentary instead of asking if Zucker would have been interseted in one, and he published it. Would you, Jokestress, want to include info from such a commentary if I had written it? Because there is no reason I could not have. If the answer is no then you should really reconsider your position. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
If the material being collected were clearly relevant to the topic, which is this case is the Bailey book and its subjects and the complaints against Bailey, then it wouldn't be a problem to compile it into a section. But in this case, WhatamIdoing has taken off and done research on the applicability of IRB regulations, in an apparent attempt to bolster Bailey's case that he didn't contravene any regulations. There's nothing that I've seen in the cited sources to connect that recent ruling on IRB applicability to the Bailey case. Or am I missing something? Did someone in a WP:RS point out this new decision in connection with Bailey? If so, then sourcing to that might make it OK. The source cited for "Whether federal regulations required professors to obtain formal approval from a university Institutional Review Board (IRB) before interview people was uncertain at the time" (the Robin Wilson article that you can consult at [1]), is mostly about retrospective analysis of the role of an IRB, and doesn't say a thing to suggest that the need to get approval from an IRB was "uncertain." That's an "OR" type of biased deduction from what it says. And the next bit, sourced to [here http://alpha.dickinson.edu/oha/org_irb.html], is an interterpretation of a more recent event as exhonerating Bailey; maybe it does prove that the IRB should not have been cared or been involved, but it's certainly an OR type interpretation of a selected fact with no sourced relationship to the subject. It's best to omit such non-encyclopedic syntheses from biograpies, and just report what's relevant and verifiable in reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Declaring a mention of the actual rules related to IRB in the social sciences to be SYNTH is a remarkably idiotic dispute, especially among people that are supposed to know the basic sources better than me. The only reason that I know OHRP's statement even exists is because it is specifically mentioned in Dreger's paper:

When I put my methodology to the Northwestern IRB, the IRB agreed with me that my work on this project is not IRB-qualified (Eileen Yates to Dreger, p.e.c., July 31, 2006), i.e., that, although I have obtained data from living persons via interactions with them, what I am doing here is neither systematic nor generalizable in the scientific sense. Had the IRB disagreed with me on this point—which, knowing the regulations, they did not—I would have pointed them specifically to the 2003 clarification by the U.S. Office for Human Research Protection (OHRP) that ‘‘oral history interviewing projects in general do not involve the type of research defined by [Department of Health and Human Services] regulations and are therefore excluded from IRB oversight’’ (Ritchie & Shopes, 2003). The Oral History Association sought this clarification in response to what many scholars have come to call ‘‘mission creep’’ on the part of IRBs, i.e., the move on the part of many IRBs to claim regulatory rights to work that was never intended by the federal government to count as human subjects research (Center for Advanced Study, 2005; see also American Association of University Professors, 2006). The Oral History Association and the American Historical Association have gotten fed up enough with IRB mission creep that they recommend historians like me not even consult with their IRBs when planning to take oral histories; they advise scholars instead to simply inform their Chairs and Deans of the 2003 clarification (Ritchie & Shopes, 2003).

There you have it: the specific points, the specific document named, and the specific connection to this specific dispute. We could also add that the specific reason that this sex allegation never got anywhere is because Northwestern also concluded that JSM was not a research subject in any IRB-qualified sense. Note that Dreger's paper goes on rather at length about this, and I've only pasted a small part of it here. I particularly recommend to your attention the next paragraph, beginning ""In terms of how this all applies to the claim that Bailey was violating IRB regulations..."

Now if you are really determined that presenting information that is directly out a published journal article is a WP:SYNTH violation, then I invite you to post it at WP:NORN. But if you, like me, think it would be rather embarrassing for experienced editors to claim SYNTH over something that is stated in plain, direct language in a major source, then let's stop wrangling over this already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your "mention of the actual rules related to IRB in the social sciences" is WP:SYNTH because you've tied it to the question of charges that Bailey "failed to obtain Institutional Review Board (IRB) permission for human subjects" but haven't said how it connects, except the general implication maybe the charges weren't valid. Now that you've explained that the connection is via Dreger, your intention is more clear. You could make the point more fairly by citing Dreger for the opinion that since the IRB didn't require her to get approval to interview people, maybe they wouldn't have required Bailey to, either. Still, it's a bit of a stretch; but you can't mention these things that happened later without saying that Dreger made the connection in her synthesis of a defense for Bailey. If it's not your synthesis, it's hers, and needs to be attributed as such. Dicklyon (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Jokestress repeats two ridiculous arguments that should be rejected outright. First, she repeats the tired argument that the publishser's blurb on the book jacket says that the book is "based on [Bailey's] original research." While it does indeed say this, the idea that this implies that everything in the book is his original research is ridiculous. If it were to imply that, then someone should accuse Bailey of plagiarizing all the other researchers he wrote about. Obviously, some of the stuff in the book is Bailey's original research. Obviously some of it is not.
The second silly argument she is that Charles Moser's quote (from his commentary on Dreger) should be included: "the allegations were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct." While I understand she would like to have soeone saying as much, the quotation cannot be considered to mean what Jokestress wants it to say, and Moser's statement cannot be considered to have merit.
First, Moser contradicts himself. From Moser's own commentary: "None of my following remarks should be construed as supportive of them, their accusations against Bailey, or their tactics."
Second, consider Dreger's response to Moser: "Moser says Northwestern University’s investigation ‘basically concluded that Bailey had not violated any professional, ethical, legal, or moral standards; no penalties were levied.’ That’s not what I found. It’s possible Moser knows something I don’t know, but I doubt it." And: "How Moser could conclude the allegations made against Bailey were ‘basically true’ is beyond me, and apparently beyond the scope of his article to explain in any evidence-based fashion.
Jokestress, you have an unwaivering level of intellectual integrity.ProudAGP (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Verifiability, not truth, is our motto here. I was quoting two reliable sources. Another personal attack, and it will be Checkuser time for you... Jokestress (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dick, you have to go read the source. Dreger discusses this issue at significant length. I've pasted above only the tiny snippet that connects the existing sources (which, you will recall, I've put in the article not to prove anything about the statement (which was uncontested before the refs were added), but for the convenience of editors who keep asking for them).

Although Dreger's paper answers your objections completely, I'm pretty sure that pasting the entire long discussion into this page would both irritate some editors and violate Wikipedia's copyright policies. It's freely available. The link's in the article. Download the thing and start in the second column of page 35, at the italicized text Did Bailey conduct IRB-qualified human subjects research without IRB oversight? Don't stop reading until you've gotten at least as far as

Given all this, we have to conclude that, in his interaction with the people whose personal stories appear in TMWWBQ—of whom apparently only two (Kieltyka and Juanita) have complained to Northwestern University—J. Michael Bailey did not conduct IRB-qualified human subjects research without IRB oversight.

and ideally not until you've gotten at least as far as,

In other words, even if any sexual relations occurred between Bailey and Juanita on March 22, 1998, they were not improper relations by any reading of ethics-of-sex-with-research-subject because Juanita was not Bailey’s research subject in March 1998, when she claims the relations happened.

ProudAGP, you also might like to read that section, because Dreger also discusses Jokestress's favorite book cover blurb (page 37 in the PDF, page 402 on paper) and the endless harping by activists about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be much less objectionable to cite Dreger for her opinion, if that's the connection, which you now agree it is. Then we could also mention the responses to Dreger with alternative opinions. Or would that not suit your purpose in editing here? Or perhaps not enough "fun" for you? Dicklyon (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You can add the Dreger ref if you like: I want the links to the actual docs to remain, because I'm tired of finding them every time an editor here wanders down the "if you chat with a researcher in a bar, then you're a research subject" path. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Jokestress, "verifiability" doesn't just mean that you can check that someone said a string of words. It includes that they don't also say something completely opposite in the same source. You continue to insult the intelligence, and waste the time of, other editors here. Furthermore, you are in violation of WP:CHeckuser: "The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute." You are clearly trying to intimidate me here. Furthermore, you have a record (including recently) of publicizing information regarding IP addresses of those you consider your enemies. See, for example: http://www.tsroadmap.com/notes/index.php/site/transkidsus_hoax_site_ip_analysis_pre_2005/ . Because of this violation and because, frankly, I am frightened of your ability to control yourself, I have no choice but to notify an administrator.ProudAGP (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota's quite correct removal of my review of TMWWBQ

Cerejota just removed the page's mention of my book review of TMWWBQ (see here). In my opinion, she was entirely correct to do so. I previously brought it to the attention of the other interested editors that citing me might not be appropriate (see here and here). My review did not not undergo any sort of editorial process, and does not in my opinion meet the WP standard for an RS. Although other editors disagreed with me, it certainly was not appropriate for me to edit it. I will still not be making edits on it, but I thought it relevant to indicate my perspective here.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

James Cantor's review is blurbed on the sales page at the publisher's official site [2], which is a reliable source for this article. His involvement is also noted on Bailey's page about the book [3], and his direct role in the controversy is noted in other sources, too (it's discussed three times in his pal Dreger's 2008 paper). His reasons for not wanting it in this article are to downplay his direct and extensive involvement in this controversy since its earliest days, in hopes of avoiding WP:COI sanctions enjoining him from editing here. Jokestress (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You two are funny. It's WP:NOTABILITY if my review is cited and WP:COI if it's not. Meanwhile, it's you two who are putting it in and taking it out, while I keep leaving the decision to other editors and not touching it at all.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually WP:N, which doesn't say whether any given fact belongs in an article. Jokestress would doubtless tell you that the argument is being made from WP:NPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability is obviously irrelevant; so is COI, since Cantor isn't the guy putting it in or taking it out, as he points out. Personally, I think it should be in, as it helps to clarify that all these sexologists stick together and that Cantor is one of the principals in this mess; but I don't have strong feelings either way. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally what types of information will we rely on the peer commentaries and other SPS's for

Ok new business. We have a basic consensus that the peer commentaries are to be treated as WP SPS's and their content cited to back up this article. The question that comes up in my mind is now the question of the websites. The second question that comes to my mind is the question of what types of info we will quote from the SPS's. I see three things we can take from them related to the topic of the article.

  • The reaction of the author of an SPS to publication of TMWWBQ
  • The thoughts of the author of an SPS on how Bailey researched the book.
  • " " to the publication of Dreger's paper
  • Cricitism/support of Dreger's paper.
  • Authors who are here in Chicago or are connected to Chicago especially those directly involved should be favored over others.
    • These authors would be used as sources for information on the sex accusations
    • They would be used as sources for information on the conduct of Bailey before writing the book.
    • They would be used as sources for information on Bailey after the publication of the book (Johnathan Adler would be that person)
  • Authors who were directly involved with sexology should be given weight second only to those involved directly with the controversy.
    • Authors invovled in sexological and general psychological research would be used as references for anything do do directly and exclusively with Dr. Blanchard's theory and classification of transsexuals. (As their understanding of what is meant by Bailey's book and Blanchard's theory does not seem to be tinged with....the sex negativity of our society. Whereas to most transpeople Blanchards very sexual theory is the original sin all over again. They are not reliable, neutral, scientific expert critics of such a theory.)

That's MhO what's yours? --Hfarmer (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Darlie your comments that this was all done by Bailey in S&M clubs or a gay bar and relying on horrible deviant perverted people is the reason why this article must be comprehensive. There is so much misinformation out there both critical and supportive. I want the wikipedia articles to be one place where agreed upon basic facts can be presented to the concerned public.
Have you been to Chicago. Met any of the players? If you knew how wrong the things you said were. smh --Hfarmer (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Met the players ? No and if you have I think that violates "no original research" DarlieB (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Please send me to the official complaint record about Dr Bailey and Alice Dregers notes on it. As far as I knew that was closed and private unless Dr Dreger had some way to broken into personal university records ? If it is public information perhaps we could put a subsection on it that could post it all so that amateur sleuths could all get a crack at investigating Dr Bailey ? DarlieB (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hidden section

In this edit, TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comments out the paragraph on the allegations that Bailey had sex with one of his subjects for the book. Can this really be regarded as irrelevant? It's well sourced, is it not? Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, to use language like "allegation" there should be a law, or at least a rule, broken, were the "allegation" true. No one has made a good case that this is so in this case. The "allegation" can be mentioned, but so should the evidence that it didn't happen, that it is unclear what the specifics were, that Northwestern declined to pursue it, that Juanita was a sex worker who claims to have made $100,000 a year via sex work. In my view this "allegation" is more important as an indication of the kind of tactics that Conway et al. used than it is concerning Bailey's professional ethics.ProudAGP (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
That's some pretty bizarre lawyering. You mean one can't make an allegation of wrongdoing unless one can prove that there is an existing law that the wrongdoing transgresses? Interesting thesis! Dicklyon (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Evidently, Dicklyon, you prefer a society in which someone can be accused and punished for doing something that is not against the law? Read the original complaint by Juanita. It does not specify a way in which she was damaged by the alleged (but probably made-up) sexual contact. Jokestress has put forward her own interpretation--something about exploitation. But who cares what Jokestress says about this? What's the specific wrongdoing, and why? You can't just dismiss this issue.ProudAGP (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Dick, I believe that hiring a prostitute is a violation of law in nearly every part of the United States, and so 'were the "allegation" true' , a law might indeed have been broken. However, I think that your broader point is still true: something can be wrong without being illegal, and one can allege wrongdoing without alleging lawbreaking.
Right; and I don't think he was accused of hiring a prostitute, but rather of having sex with a research subject, who by the way also says she is a prostitute. And I hate it when ProudAGP poses such bizarre misinterpretations as if she knows what kind of society I would prefer. Sheesh. I'm not wanting to dismiss the issue, nor interpret it; just report it based on reliable sources; this is wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
As for TheRedPenOfDoom's edit, perhaps the editor will provide a more detailed explanation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You know I might just have to recuse myself from this part. I have first hand experience with both of the people involved. My personal impression, not information is that there is no reason Bailey would not have tried that at least once. Why not with a transsexual he knew for many years? Just a couple of months ago I ran into "juanita" and we had a long talk. Not about this though. That said. We talked about religion and how uniquely difficult it is to be a transwomen of color. This I sear to you on the holy Qr'an is true.
This is relevant information. That's all it is information. The allegation wasn't that Bailey had sex with a transsexual, or that he hired a prostitute... The allegation was made that Bailey had sex with a research subject. That as being a well placed middle class white male, privillaged, and revered by the women he treated... That he took advantage of that. That is what I think the real allegation was. Weather that is so or not I don't know. I will never ask either of them if I run into them because asking that would be really akwarad and not my business.
Let's just report the fact that the allegation was made and not make a big deal out of the affair.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
why not? Because of our WP:BLP - we have an allegation that our source says the person making the allegation has provided no evidence to support and that our source says there is evidence to contradict the claims made in the allegation. How is the inclusion of this allegation as supported by this source in any way meeting our policy of "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

http://bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/dreger.html

Deletion of a different section

Oh my god, someone who believes in facts. I totally agree "Do no harm". I have removed the Dreger "Freedom "section all together as it served no purpose . If and when there is some legal or agreed on issue rather than Alice Dregers "conspiracy theory" then it can be included. To this point no one has shown that any conspiracy against Bailey ever existed. The academics that challenged Bailey had every right to since his theories were published. No one has ever shown that what happened to Bailey had anything to do with an intent to do anything beyond rebut Baileys finding. His job or loss of is his own doing. DarlieB (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


DarlieB, the published, reliable sources talk at some length about this particular scandal's implications for academic freedom. It's not the opinion of "some amateur investigator"; leaving completely aside Dreger's paper, academic freedom is the first major section of Carey's article in The New York Times, a point raised in The Chronicle of Higher Education, and a major theme among some of the commentaries in Arch Sex Behav (including those who disagree with Bailey).
I have therefore reverted your wholesale deletion of this properly referenced section, and I ask that you not delete it again unless/until you can find any single regular editor of this page (that is, yourself plus another logged-in, clearly non-sockpuppet editor) that also supports its wholesale deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


What ? No sorry WAID, you can't make accusations because some newspaper printed a fantasy of some amatuer sleuth . Dreger is not an investigator, Northwestern's investigation was private and unless she broke into those records she knows nothing. SHE A EVEN ADMITS OVER AND OVER SHE DOESN"T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ! Why would you include this other than CREATE controversy ?! Her Investigation was unofficial and totally amateur, prove otherwise ! The fact she was quoted in the NYT means nothing, it's a newspaper , not a scientific journal so stop trying to validate her ravings . Published " does not equal fact (WMD's). Show proof of a conspiracy beyond Dregers fantasy otherwise you have no basis to make accusations of "conspiracy " or infringement of freedom. Baileys book was published and nothing exists to back anything but peoples distain for his methods. The burden of proof is on you to show Dreger has any credibility as an investigator at all.DarlieB (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:RSN says that Dreger's Arch Sex Behav paper is a reliable source for this issue. Please restore the information that you, once again, deleted against consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am restoring the section that DarlieB deleted. DarlieB, in my opinion you have become a nuisance, if not a vandal. I believe you should be blocked from editing this page.ProudAGP (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


Please try and have me blocked. I have no problem defending my assertion of Dregers statements as unofficial, amateur and with no basis of expertise in the field of investigation . It's her personal POV , nothing else . Her own "conclusion" that she did not know what went on invalidates any assumption you try and represent as "fact" Lets have it out before the WP:RSN. Give me a link as I'm happy to challenge anyone who tries to defend her as an "expert"..Show proof of a conspiracy beyond Dregers fantasy otherwise you have no basis to make accusations of "conspiracy " or infringement of freedom. Baileys book was published and nothing exists to back anything but peoples distain for his methods. The burden of proof is on you to show Dreger has any credibility as an investigator at all. Oh yes , and by my account Dregers accusations and the printing of them should be actionable. Now I issue you this challenge, show that Bailey was in ANY WAY silenced. That his book was in ANY WAY repressed. At this point what you are trying to inject is absolute fabrication. You are and have been violating "do no harm" on people living . Please, try and have me blocked as I have NO problem whatsoever defending my edit. Bring it. DarlieB (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) DarlieB, my goal at this moment, with an ArbCom case having been filed and a formal mediation likely to begin, is for you to stop edit warring. Please do not delete the sourced information again until you can get any one established editor to put his/her name to a statement on this page that supports its deletion. That's all I'm asking for: If you can get Dicklyon or Jokestress or any editor at all whose account is old enough that it's probably not a sockpuppet to say that it should be deleted, then I'm willing to put this on hold until the various formal processes are complete.

If you can't, in all of Wikipedia, find a single person willing to say that peer-reviewed articles published in a major scientific journal and feature articles in The New York Times fail to meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, then I ask you to please quit deleting the information until it can be addressed through the various formal processes. Does that sound fair to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: The commentaries on Dreger's paper have made repeated appearances at RSN, and nothing by the uninvolved editors at RSN has ever suggested the least concern about Dreger's paper being unreliable. I was going to add the links, but instead I'll suggest that you find the mediation request, because I'd like you to be involved in it. WhatamIdoing (talk)

Yes I'm just making my case now. If you are so confident it is credible just leave it off until they block me and you can put up all the fabricated fantasy you want. I'm just making my statement now. DarlieB (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen/Archive_10"