Talk:Ryan T. Anderson

"Transgenderism"
This article makes use of the term "transgenderism," which is both vague and is generally not accepted nomenclature. Would probably be good if someone could rewrite that sentence. Frojojo (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Is "hate-peddling bigot" appropriate for an encyclopedia?
That sure seems correct *in my view*! Were I publishing an encyclopedia, though, I would only use value-free terms. That's how this is supposed to work, isn't it?

The last thing a collaborative, open-source project like this needs is to needlessly antagonize such bigots. The facts speak for themselves. 24.228.253.59 (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Bias
Edits recently made reflect efforts to be more ideologically neutral. They contain both accurate summaries of the articles cited as well as the parts that remain controversial for LGBT allies. Edits also contain information that brings the article up to date on Anderson’s vocation, job status, personal life, and notable publications. Please do not revert edits. (Marspe1 June 18, 2024) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marspe1 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Line-By-Line Critique of Edit Promoted by Ttarta
Look, here's a line-by-line critique of this article and the changes I made to both be more accurate as well as promote more ideological neutrality.

First, we should note that one of the main sources of criticism as currently promoted in the article from Media Matters is missing on their page. Either that or the link to that page is broken and a 404 page appears.

Now, for the line-by-line:


 * Ryan Thomas Anderson[1] (born 1981)[2] is an American religious conservative who is primarily known for his opposition to LGBT rights in the United States,

Anderson has his Ph.D. in political philosophy and has published on the same. He has written several books from a social conservative pespective and diving into topics like law, medicine, gender theory, and philosophy. Noting merely an ideological persuasion first is not an honest article of a living person. He is not merely a "religious conservative." His ideas are in line with the broader net of social conservatism. An introduction to an article like this needs to note (1) what his actual vocation is, (2) where he performs that vocation, and (3) from what perspective. Also, Anderson has now written a book in opposition to abortion and that information should be included in the article.


 * including the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States, laws that ban discrimination against LGBT people, and laws that ban the practice of conversion therapy on children.[3][4][5]

All of that is covered in the main body of the article when discussing his publications. It is also in the "criticism" section that I have created for the article. Also, LGBT rights are already summarized at the hyperlinked article and thus inclusion here can be arguably seen as superfluous. Finally, I am unaware of any source, including the ones cited, that show that Anderson opposes laws that ban truly invidious discrimination against LGBT individuals and I thus see this as an unsourced claim.


 * Anderson is currently president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He was previously a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and the founder and editor-in-chief of Public Discourse, an online journal of the Witherspoon Institute.

I have included more information about his previous positions as well as current ones. Professorships and fellowships are important to note in something like a biography article.


 * Anderson was born in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1981, the second youngest of five sons.

The punctuation here is bad. I've separated this into two sentences in my current draft of the article.


 * He attended Princeton University, where he received his B.A. degree, and then the University of Notre Dame, where he earned a Ph.D.

In my current draft of the article, I note that his B.A. was in music. That can be sourced by the first article cited in his publications section. I will cite that in a new revision.


 * Career

This is a really poor "career" section. To begin, this is not an exhaustive listing of his publication record and that is not even noted. Not all of the books that he has written and published are mentioned. Not even half of the articles he has written have been mentioned. In my current draft, I note all of his books written at least. I have also made a note indicating that what appears is not an exhaustive listing of his publications.


 * In November 2003, Anderson wrote an article for the Daily Princetonian, the student newspaper at Princeton University, comparing homosexual "characteristics" and homosexual "acts" to "alcoholism" and "the crimes of a pedophiliac priest" in arguing for his religious beliefs about homosexuality.[10][4][5]

This line is meant to simply be inflammatory to LGBT individuals and their allies. The article does not "compare" homosexual characteristics and acts to alcoholism nor pedophilic priests. It says that one should not jump from the premise that certain predilections are inborn to the conclusion that such predilections are good or bad. Anderson argues that behavior is the most important when evaluating morality. Notably, he includes Mother Theresa in his argument.


 * In February 2007, Anderson wrote an article for First Things, a religious conservative journal, about his friend in which he speculated about his "problem" of same-sex attraction, said that his friend "suffers" same-sex attraction, mused about a "cure" for homosexuality, and claimed homosexuality as amidst "disorders".[11][4][5]

This isn't even an accurate summary of the overall purpose of the article which is summarized in my current draft of this article. The offending line is quoted in my current revision of the page and included for ideological neutrality.


 * In 2012, Anderson wrote an article in which he promoted an article about advocates for a "cure" for homosexuality who fought against laws that ban the practice of conversion therapy on children and quoted his previous article in justification.[12][4][5]

Actually, neither my revision nor yours accurately captures the article overall. I'm going to rewrite this sentence as follows:

In 2012, again writing for First Things, Anderson talked about a recent critique he had written in National Review about an op-ed published in the New York Times supporting same-sex marriage and promoted an article (also published in the New York Times) about self-labeled ex-gay men who both believed their attractions had been altered in some way through conversion therapy and fought against laws banning the practice of conversion therapy.


 * In 2012, Anderson co-authored the book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense with Sherif Girgis and his mentor Robert P. George, published by Encounter Books.[3][13] In it, they argued that the purpose of marriage is reproduction and thus same-sex marriage should not be possible. Justice Samuel Alito referenced the book in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Windsor.[3][14]

I massaged the wording here. They don't argue that same-sex marriage isn't possible, but that the concept of it is incoherent or otherwise not philosophically substantive. Also, the links in the citations to United States v. Windsor were broken and I fixed those. Also, the construction of the first sentence is really bad. I have corrected these errors in my latest revision. Finally, this part doesn't adequately explain the origins of the book. The book started as an article published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy in 2010.


 * In 2014, Anderson wrote a dissertation titled Neither Liberal Nor Libertarian: A Natural Law Approach to Social Justice and Economic Rights, advised by University of Notre Dame professor Michael Zuckert.[9][2]

This information was better placed in his early life and education section. That is where it is in my current revision of the page.


 * In 2018, Anderson released his book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.[17][18][19] The book, critical of what Anderson calls "transgenderism" and heavily influenced by the works of Paul R. McHugh, came under scrutiny after it topped the Amazon bestsellers list in the Gay & Lesbian Civil Rights History category.[20]

I have only edited the line "critical of what Anderson calls 'transgenderism'" since that is an unsourced claim and not readily sourced by a review of the book.


 * In 2019, Anderson wrote in opposition to a state law in Massachusetts that bans the practice of conversion therapy on children.[21][22][4][5]

But Anderson didn't write anything. He merely talked about his opposition to the law with the writer of the article from Catholic News Agency.


 * In 2020, Anderson co-wrote an article with his mentor Robert P. George in which they claimed homosexual "inclinations" as "disordered" in criticizing Pope Francis for his support for the legal recognition of same-sex couples.[23][4][5]

That's not even the main point of the article. The point of the article is to reaffirm and restate their philosophical and religious commitments to Catholic Teaching on sexuality. They also don't mean to criticize the Pope because, as noted in their article, they don't know exactly what the Pope said. It's a cautiously critical response to the Pope. Anderson's belief that homosexual sexual attraction is disordered is already noted in the article under the 2007 article from First Things.


 * On February 21, 2021, Anderson wrote an article in opposition to the Equality Act, which is a bill in the United States Congress that would ban discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in federal law.[24]

Since the Equality Act is hyperlinked in the article, additional description seemed superfluous.


 * On February 21, 2021, Anderson's book, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, was removed from Amazon.[25] On March 11, 2021, Amazon explained its decision in a letter addressed to Republican Senators Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Mike Braun, and Josh Hawley.[26] Anderson denied that his book described transgender people as "mentally ill."[27]

First, this part doesn't explain why Anderson had to deny that is book describes people as mentally ill. My revision corrects for this. Second, this section is totally out of place when the book was already discussed earlier. My revision moves this section under discussion of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marspe1 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, the state of the "Career" section both as it is now and as it was before your edits is horrendous. Before, it was a proseline listing of essentially everything in that Media Matters for America article. Per WP:MEDIAMATTERS, claims made by the publication should be attributed. Also cited was the GLAAD accountability profile of Anderson. While GLAAD is a reputable organization, the fact that it is an LGBT-rights organization makes me think information sourced to it should've been attributed. Now, it's the exact opposite. You said the Media Matters for America article was 404 not found, but you could've just easily googled it and fixed the link. You changed a lot of the wording and cited much of the section to WP:PRIMARY sources or even none at all. You shouldn't include analysis of Anderson's writings if independent reliable sources didn't analyze it first.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 07:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , you can't revert back to your version of the article and claim WP:CON and then not contribute to the discussion.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Bait30, your concerns regarding WP:UNSOURCED and WP:PRIMARY have been effectively resolved by restoring the prior version of the article, which references three sources (one primary and two secondary) each, which were largely removed by Marspe1, for each of the quoted items. Marspe1, your edits were problematic as you removed all secondary sources or even all sources in certain instances and that is what caused Bait30 to remove several quoted items per WP:UNSOURCED and WP:PRIMARY; and worse still, your edits slanted the article in a manner that attempted to sanitize the various opinions of the subject, which violates WP:NPOV. --Ttarta (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * you are correct that I didn't Google it. But I did search for it directly on the Media Matters website and, at the time, nothing came up. We can correct for that and cite it, with supporting references, where applicable. Also, can you help me understand what you think is analysis? I was going for strict summary. I understand why you perceive the writing as proseline; but (1) I was trying to correct for Ttarta's edits that rely heavily on Media Matters and GLAAD and (2) I don't believe the material can't be streamlined more., I did not remove all secondary sources. We can add more where applicable, however. Your claim that I was attempting to sanitize the subject's views is incorrect. I consciously made an effort to keep what people find controversial about Anderson's beliefs. The summaries you provide in the article rely to heavily on the analysis of Media Matters, and their analysis is incorrect in several regards which my revision corrects for.Marspe1 (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * and their analysis is incorrect in several regards which my revision corrects for - That is exactly the problem here. You are engaging in disruptive editing and edit warring to implement your biased version of the article that is based on your own conjecture that is in blatant violation of Wikipedia policies regarding neutral point of view and no original research. You are in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy that all material in an article must be as referenced from sources, particularly secondary sources over primary sources, and cannot be your own conjecture based on your own interpretation of primary sources. You have been politely informed of these various Wikipedia policies multiple times now. Stop now or you will be blocked. --Ttarta (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "Implement your own biased version of the article" relying on a source that is described on its own Wikipedia page as a "left-leaning watchdog journalism" organization to construct a biography article about a right-leaning intellectual and claiming that is from a "neutral point of view" is, frankly, risible and hypocritical in the extreme. Also, if you honestly review my edits again, you do not see the sanitization you repeatedly claim to exist. When Media Matters is so easily shown to be wrong from the primary sources, we either have to have to find secondary sources that support accurate summaries of the primary source material or just remove the claims altogether. "Based on your own conjecture" it's fair to say that I didn't use secondary sources, but it's not fair to call it my own conjecture. I typed out summaries of the articles and not moral evaluations of them and I linked to/cited primary sources. Please at least consider my edits that don't have to do with the Career section. Marspe1 (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)