Talk:Hypatia (journal)/Archive 1

Transracialism controversy section
The section should be removed, per WP:UNDUE. You would not find a comparable section in any other article about a philosophy journal, and that is good enough reason to believe that such a section does not belong in this article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It would be mentioned in any article about a philosophy journal that apologized for having published an argument. Had the incident stopped at the request for a retraction, then perhaps RS would not have taken notice, but the apology ensured that people would write about it. SarahSV (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. But the section is still over-detailed as it stands and could be cut back. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought so too at first, but it has actually caused quite a fuss, so I think the details are needed. What were you thinking should be removed? SarahSV (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

, there's a complaint that this section is too long, so it's best to avoid making it any longer. SarahSV (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The adjustments are minor. The articles purpose is to inform the reader of the controversy. It has been reported by several major publications in both US and Canada. I think it was great how you fine tuned it. I think we should just add some more info, since we do mention the argument presented I think we can add a little more so it is described correctly. The majority of the article is regarding four major objections to social recognition for transracialism. That is why I added "..while considering and rejecting several objections that suggested that an individual's decision to change race should not be accepted by a society."
 * We should add that Tuval has apologized for deadnaming and will have it removed. She has also received hate mail. I don't mind removing the last sentence as the name of the article does sort of add hyperbole.
 * PS The section is only two paragraphs long. It may seem long because the rest of the article is so small. Hypatia is relatively major minor publication and more info in the main section would be great. I will do that.
 * PSS the Sokal affair also concerned an academic journal. The story is very interesting and significant and its long :) Rybkovich (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't see any real difference, in this context, between arguing that "[c]onsiderations that support transgenderism seem to apply equally to transracialism" and "considering and rejecting several objections that suggested that an individual's decision to change race should not be accepted by a society". SarahSV (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't want to remove that sentence again without discussion, but it does seem repetitive and it contains a triple negative. I had to read it a couple of times to work out what it meant. SarahSV (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As there has been no reply, I've removed it. SarahSV (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what counts as comparable, but converage of controversy involving philosophy journals certainly is not unprecedented: Synthese 81.155.23.66 (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * May not be unprecedented, but current section is half the article, that is not justified.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The solution is to develop the rest of the article. SarahSV (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Re "including a few academic philosophers" a few really sounds like count on one hand. Should we change it to some? Here's a version with names, I checked about a dozen randomly on the list and most were faculty with about half in the philosophy department, one was in gender studies but also practiced phenomenology which would count. How about we change it to some. Here's the list https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/alexis-shotwell-open-letter-to-hypatia/ Rybkovich (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * , re: the self-published sources you've added, see WP:BLPSPS. SarahSV (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I think we are fine in this case because the cites are acting as proof that Leiter made the statement and re opinion of other philosophers, not in support of the points they are making. I think the key is to cite Leiter's blog for his quote. http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/05/the-defamation-of-rebecca-tuvel-by-the-board-of-associate-editors-of-hypatia-and-the-open-letter.html We can find a third party source for "There was significant support for Tuvel among philosophers". Or we can put in a footnote listing the specific philosophers who are quoted in http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2011/05/the-letter-2-of-the-3-synthese-editors-in-chief-sent-to-barbara-forrest-after-being-lobbied-by-beckw.html and refer to it in that note. Rybkovich (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I had already added a third-party cite for the quote (New York Magazine). You added the blog instead. I know it's frustrating in a case like this to have to stick to BLPSPS, because there's so much more we could say, but we really can't rely on blogs. SarahSV (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This shows no sign of dying down, so I've created an article, Hypatia transracialism controversy. SarahSV (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The new article is welcome and appears well written, but the content here still seems too substantial. I wonder if the content here (on this article) should be only about matters directly concerning the publication, in this case its governance. Criticism or praise that is related only to the published article's content or its author appears to me to be veering into off-topic (and also an over-emphasis, since no other article in the publication's entire history is mentioned). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. I don't see an issue with a two paragraph description. I feel that both for and against opinions are necessary to understand the controversy. Also this subsection can be considered as a first step in expanding the journal entry, a subsection can be made re significant articles for example. Rybkovich (talk)


 * It's a good idea to create a section on significant articles. Lots of people are coming here at the moment and will know nothing about the journal. It usually gets c. 3–20 views a day, but it's currently getting c. 130–600. I've tightened the controversy section to get it back to two paragraphs. I agree about not going into detail about the complaints because we can't explain them clearly here. SarahSV (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In a 35 year publishing history, the journal has published only a single notable article? That is, essentially, what this content is implying if it does go beyond content dealing with how the journal dealt with the responses to the article and strays into content concerning criticism of what the article contained. Basically, I'm agreeing with your edit here that deleted "Criticism included that Tuvel had referred to Jenner's former name, known as deadnaming; that the term transgenderism was not acceptable; and that, in its discussion of transracialism, the article had failed to refer to scholarly work by women of color." Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight of transracialism controversy
I am concerned that the level of detail dedicated to this controversy, especially in the lead, violates WP:UNDUE. Although the controversy was indeed damaging to the journal, I worry that this article is being used to further that damage rather than merely documenting it. Another editor with historical knowledge should flesh out the historical importance of Hypatia for the development of feminist philosophy, which is largely missing here... that is the original source of the journal's notability. That stature within its field can stand alongside the contemporary academic infighting that has drawn attention from wider academic news outlets. Maybe Slim Virgin can take the initiative to try to restore some balance here, given that they have invested so much in researching the controversy. Jazzcowboy (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess this is a continuation of this discussion, which probably should not have been archived. Can someone who knows the syntax (I don't) change the bot settings so this page doesn't get archived so aggressively? There's no reason for that on this relatively quiet talk page. Thanks. Jazzcowboy (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)