Talk:Archives of Sexual Behavior

BBL controversy
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)


 * Your first cite supports that Zucker, Blanchard, et al. are on the editorial board, not that they are embroiled in anything; that leaves the first sentence unsupported.
 * That Dreger's history is one-sided is POV; there are other people who believe it is a fair assessment. That makes the second sentence inappropriate to WP.
 * The third sentence is supported only by cites to personal blogs, which are not reliable sources (except for certain uses on those people's own bio pages).

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)

BLP warning
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)


 * It's unclear to me why you would consider "the editor (Zucker) and several members of its editorial board (J. Michael Bailey, Ray Blanchard, and Anne Lawrence) have become involved in what has become known as the Bailey–Blanchard–Lawrence controversy" to be an accusation of anyone. Or why the cited published article that supports it is not an acceptable source.  Can you review that, please?  The cited source that you removed is:  Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The entry consists entirely of insinuation; it does not belong in WP.
 * Student newspapers do not meet WP:RS.
 * I have already pointed out previously that your description of Dreger's article violates WP:NPOV. In moderating our discussion, BrownHornet21 agreed..  You reinstate it nonetheless.


 * my comment, from Dicklyon's talk page:
 * To assert that the editor of a journal published a one-sided attack on a scientist is a violation of BLP, and must be supported by a reliable secondary source saying that he did that., A student newspaper is not a RS for matters of this sort. You will need a source from at least one academic journal or the like of unimpeachable reputation for this material--& in circumstances like this, balanced sources if at all possible.  If you want to try to write a paragraph on the controversy, and have such a source, put it on the talk page. This has gone too far. There is no tolerance for BLP whatsoever. DGG (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you or Marion had pointed out that the term "one-sided" was what bothered you (OOPS, sorry, I see now that Marion had done so in the diff linked above), we could have just removed it. It was not intended to be an accusation of bias.  There's no trouble supported the fact that the ASB, with Zucker as editor, published Dreger's analysis.  It's also very clear from the commentaries that go with it, and from the reactions elsewhere, that there's a re-invigorated controversy in which the people on the side that Dreger is critical of are criticizing her in return, as well as criticising Zucker.  We should be able to frame a reference to the controversy without bias or POV.  Probably citations to Zucker's introduction and some the other commentaries would be enough, avoiding the direct responses of the principals that are not published in the ASB (though this might be biased a bit the other direction).  Here's what Zucker writes in the opening paragraphs of the issue:

"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


 * So there's no stretch calling it controversial. Anyone else want to take a stab at an NPOV way to talk about this "newly spawned tradition" of the ASB? Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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, on this talk page here and here, and on our moderated discussion page. Our mediator, BrownHornet21, agreed with me here. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC


 * Only the one of those that I linked about said WHY you were calling it POV (i.e. the "one-sided" phrase); some of the others just stated and repeated an empty charge, and claimed that references to the non-ASB side views are not reliable, even though they're the same things we agree above to use to refer to the controversy (at least in the context of the Lynn Conway article). I asked you to explain your objections, but you kept not explaining. Dicklyon (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy?
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)

Disclosure.
I serve on the editorial board for Archives and several other journals in sexology. — James Cantor (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

89.5% of OF subscribers are married? That’s a mistake
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)