Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen/Archive 11

Academic freedom section
Back around December 18-24 we left this discussion unresolved, and now there's edit warring over the section again. User:DarlieB removes it and User:WhatamIdoing puts it back, repeatedly. Since I and DarlieB think it's a BLP violation in its present form, and since it was created pretty much by WhatamIdoing, it would be more consistent with WP:BLP to leave it out until we arrive at a consensus about it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The material in question has now been restored by three separate editors, but are we talking about the same section? The text contains four sentences, which I've separated here:
 * The controversy surrounding Bailey's book has been cited as an example of infringement of academic and intellectual freedom and freedom of speech by Northwestern University professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics Alice Dreger who wrote a "history" of the controversy.
 * According to Dreger in an interview with The New York Times, "What happened to Bailey is important, because the harassment was so extraordinarily bad and because it could happen to any researcher in the field. If we’re going to have research at all, then we’re going to have people saying unpopular things, and if this is what happens to them, then we’ve got problems not only for science but free expression itself... The bottom line is that they tried to ruin this guy, and they almost succeeded."
 * Bailey called the two years following its publication "the hardest of my life."
 * Twenty-three peer commentaries were published in reaction to Dreger's article in Archives of Sexual Behavior.
 * The text then contains (1) an assertion that Dreger wrote a paper that discussed academic freedom; (2) a quotation directly attributed to Dreger and that she did, apparently, actually say, or at least which is consistent with her other writings and which she has failed to deny; (3) a statement by Bailey that it's pretty miserable to be publicly attacked that he did, apparently, actually say, or at least which is consistent with his other writings and which he has failed to deny; (4) a statement that 23 peer commentaries were published.
 * The material is apparently accurate (according to the highest-quality sources we have) and contains, per BLP, "what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves." I know how it fails to support DarlieB's POV, but where exactly is the biographical violation?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

W, the number of editors helping you here is not at issue; neither is (by me at least) the verifiability of the statements and quotes the make up the section. The balance of the section is what makes it "unfair"; giving so much voice to Dreger's colleague who has made herself a principal in the disputes by campaigning with Bailey on radio and such about this is just too far out of line. You chose to focus on Dreger's claim that the dispute has a significantly notable "academic freedom" component. Yet you've resisted mentioning that the commentaries pretty much all disagree with her on many points, including some on this specific one. I think a good step would be to add a quote from one that disagrees with her on this specific issue. I've put one such quote on User talk:DarlieB in my discussion with her about that. I don't know if that's enough to address her concerns; let's wait and see what she had to say.

As for including Dreger's accusation "they tried to ruin this guy" and things like that, even though "they" are not named in this section, the statement would need to be backed up by secondary sources, wouldn't it, to avoid violating WP:BLP? Dicklyon (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The claim that this scandal has a significant "academic freedom" component is not solely Dreger's opinion, although that's all that we're presenting at the moment. It is the opinion of many people, including Dreger, two unrelated newspapers, and several of those commentaries.  In fact, the set of people that (A) consider having nasty attacks on your family and people lobbying for criminal charges for writing letters and efforts to have you fired for abusing (alleged, but not actual) research subjects (etc.) to not have any potential effects on academic freedom and that (B) were not actively involved in making said attacks in 2003 (that is, before Dreger's paper was even contemplated) is, as far as I can make out, the null set.  If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to read any non-self-published reliable source that supports your view.  (By the way, the Carey piece -- where the Dreger quote is found -- is a secondary source.)
 * Please remember that RSN's decision that the 'peer commentaries' are self-published sources is not my fault, and that I'm as much bound by that decision as anyone else. On this specific issue, none of the peer commentaries are acceptable:  Not one is published by a person who is an expert in issues of free speech or academic freedom.  We therefore can't use them on the issue of academic freedom.
 * Finally, as I understand BLP, the views of small minorities are not required. It's not like Journalism 101, where you're supposed to get a quotation from both 'sides', even if that means finding someone at the Flat Earth Society because you're talking about the shape of the earth.  Dreger's opinion is the clearly dominant opinion.  Additionally, it is carefully presented as Dreger's opinion, not the sole Truth™.
 * I don't think that this section is perfect, but I (and apparently others) think that it meets all the requirements of BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that your opinions on the section are based on your opinions about the "real world"; but really what matters here is wikipedia policy on verifiability and such. As it stands, it's terribly one-sided; let's include the other side if you think the topic is worth keeping.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit of balance from Moser's commentary; I don't know if it's enough, but it's a start. I also tuned up the rest a bit, as it was all too heavy on Dreger and a bit of editorialization based on her POV. Small changes, but I think they help. Comments? Here are the four diffs together. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think:
 * that the first Moser statement isn't about academic freedom and thus doesn't belong in this section,
 * that the second Moser statement doesn't fairly represent his entire opinion on the subject (cherry picking), and
 * that per Wikipedia's rules about verifiability, Moser's letter cannot be cited on the issue of academic freedom because Moser not an expert on academic freedom (or anything remotely related to it).
 * Have you not been able to find any properly published, reliable sources that assert that none of the anti-Bailey efforts hurt academic freedom? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If that's the logic you want to go by, we should take out the whole section, as Dreger is also clearly not a competent expert on such things. Dicklyon (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * She is demonstrably an expert on ethics and on the activism of sexual minority groups.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you two serious in suggesting that the scope of the section as defined by the heading, or the scope of the charges and counter charges in relationship to the perceived expertise of these sexology-related academics should be invoked to exclude wikipedia from reporting the other side of the story? I'll make the more generous interpretation first, that the heading needs be to adjusted; done. Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dick I feel for you. The peer commentaries and other IMO arguably relevant SPS's are inadmissible here on wikipedia for any number of reasons. (i.e. "Maria's Story by the one known here only as J/S/M)  Aside of course from information in articles about the person wo wrote them.  Perhaps you could do that.  If any of the people who wrote commentaries you could include their reaction to TMWWBQ and Dreger's paper as written in the commentaries there.  As their own BLP what they write about themselves is admissiable.  However as far as trying to get such sources admitted in general no dice.  We went through TWO RSN's on this.  It can be considered a general WP consensus that such sources are only admissiable if they come from people who were invited expert commentators, people with relevant academic backgrounds.  (in the words of Richard Feynmann "A scientist looking at non-scientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * . These are no more self-published than Dreger.  Even if they were, with Cantor's proposed "expert" as a cutoff criterion, Moser is clearly an expert.  The online pages of Conway are self-published, so I agree we don't use them here.  The commentaries in the special issue on this topic are not self-published, so we can use them.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I happen to agree with Cantor, the issue of Dreger's expertise is a red herring: Dreger's peer-reviewed Arch Sex Behav paper and Carey's feature-length article in The New York Times are not self-published.  These sources therefore do not have to comply with Wikipedia's rules for self-published sources.
 * (I don't think that the new section heading helps at all.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course they don't, they're not self-published any more than Moser's response is. Although, one has to wonder how Dreger's paper can actually be considered "peer reviewed" and a "history" at the same time, if it's in a sexology journal.  And don't forget that WP:BLP goes beyond the usual requirements of "reliable sources" when reporting controversial opinions, which is what Dreger's assertions about Bailey's opponents are.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dick, the "peer commentaries" (including Moser's) have gone to RSN twice now, and both times RSN has firmly decreed that they are self-published sources for the purpose of Wikipedia. Therefore different rules apply to Moser's commentary and Dreger's paper and the newspaper articles.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In neither case was it "firmly decreed". In any case, now that we have a specific test case (Moser) instead the generalized statement that anyone might have written these things, it's worth seeing if anyone believes that there's a reason to exclude the Moser paper.  Seems unlikely to me that anyone besides you and James will object, but we'll see. Dicklyon (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it was Dick. The consensus was overwhelming to exclude non expert SPS's where expert was defined by academic credentials.  i.e. being an invited editor.  (By the by I have redacted your actual personal attack on my good faith which I have shown mountains of.  You really should read WP:DICK it applies to you.)--Hfarmer (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize that I am stepping into a highly charged situation. But this section title as it is currently seems to be a bit of a mouth full. The section appears to be about a charged critic of the negative reactions and a counter stating that the critic is a bit heavy handed, if I'm am reading the POVs examined by the prose correctly. Perhaps something akin to "Negative reactions vs concerns of academic freedom" or "Critique of the controversy as it relates to academic freedom"? Though those are a bit much as well. PaleAqua (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your opinion. Honestly, I think that changing it back to ==Academic freedom== is the best choice.  The section title doesn't actually have to provide a detailed summary, just that the content under that heading is more or less on that general subject.  (And the 'house style' seems to favor very short section heads anyway, so it "matches" the rest of Wikipedia.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye shorter headings are normally better, which is why I said something. Though I have to say I understand the arguments against just using ==Academic freedom== as well. Going to revert it back for now in lieu of something better. PaleAqua (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with that heading for now, as long as it's not used as a reason to exclude the other side of the story (note that W had said "1. that the first Moser statement isn't about academic freedom and thus doesn't belong in this section"). The heading came in with the original biased content, as part of the POV that there's a significant academic freedom issue here; I'm not sure there is, but if Dreger is followed by some counter, it's not so bad. Dicklyon (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The section heading is not what determines the content: Many reliable sources have commented on issues of academic freedom and free speech.  We therefore need to discuss academic freedom and free speech.  And, no, we can't use non-expert self-published sources when discussing this (or any other) issue, no matter what section heading we use for them.  Your mispresentation of Moser's self-published, personal opinion on this issue does not comply with Wikipedia's basic policies.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The fabrication of the Academic Freedom section
There was no loss of  "Academic Freedom" ! Does anyone here have any proof whatsoever that :

1). That Bailey was silenced ?

1).That Bailey's work was censored or removed ?

1).An orchestrated attempt to ban him speaking ?

1).there was any sort of conspiracy against him ?

1).That he was forced to resign because of a conspiracy.

1).That the infamous "chilling effect " claimed ever happened at all ?

You have 23 HIDDEN  rebuttals to Alice Dreger but only she is quoted ? How is it this utterly lopsided and unfair section is included without a shred of proof and her opinion rates completely over 23 other people in a field she has NO EXPERTISE IN ?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talk • contribs) 00:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits on this page: A summary
Due to his anger at edits being made at Lynn Conway Dicklyon unilaterally renounced an editing agreement between him and James Cantor (an agreement that he had not actually been following in any case). Subsequently, he edited not only at Lynn Conway, but also on this page. The edits on this page are outlandish. Specifically, he concurrently denies (contrary to Wikipedia policy and past input from uninvolved parties) that Alice Dreger can be cited (from either her peer reviewed target article in Archives of Sexual Behavior or the article about this controversy in the New York Times) as raising concerns about this controversy for academic freedom. He also picks a quotation from Charles Moser from the non-peer-reviewed commentaries on Dreger's target article, which is unacceptable both because of its content (which contradicts other content in his same commentary) and because uninvolved parties had previously judged that commentaries such as Moser's were to be treated as self-published sources (e.g., because Moser has no expertise on academic freedom). (I note that Jokestress also incorrectly wants to use the Moser quotation, as presumably does DarlieB.) Dicklyon has also changed the section heading title to something preposterous. Finally, he is urging outside opinions on matters that have already been vetted. Evidently he intends to persist in raising hell until he gets his way.

Although we are likely to have a mediation about this page soon, I do not see why we should tolerate the kind of near-vandalism that Dicklyon is committing here during the meantime. Therefore, I am giving Dicklyon 24 hours to change his destructive edits back, or I will do it myself--unless reasonable editors of this page can give me a convincing reason why I should not. ProudAGP (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt that this will seem like a convincing reason, but WP:There is no deadline, as the heat death of the universe is not expected for quite some time yet. I furthermore expect that if you revert Dick's changes (which, in very broad terms, I agree are not the highest expression of Wikipedia's policies), that the only concrete result will be an undesirable edit war in the short-term.  Given that, it might be better to wait for a long-term solution through mediation (or other dispute resolution processes.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There ought to be a page WP:Life is short. The heat death of the universe may be a 10^100 Trillion years in the future... but my own personal death could happen tomorrow.  A car crash, a bolt from the blue, having a plane on appraoch to O'Hare crash into my house, who knows?  The same goes for any human being.  (Think of how many people have died sudden and natural deaths from some congenital and undetected heart defect.)  So as far as I am concerned if a process like mediation is stalled because one or more parties involved are on a wikibreak then that process is effectively dead.


 * I also refuse to endure another week of Dicklyon's little remarks while we wait some more for a mediator to mediate us to what I am more and more confident will only be an intractible deadlock.--Hfarmer (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hontas, it's not about anger. It's about wikipedia.  There are processes.  Your theatrics disrupt them.  Settle down. Dicklyon (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Near vandalism ? Dicklyon is the only one trying to get neutrality on this article. I definately want mediation because the harrassment here is personal. Anyone you disagree with you file complaints against. I think it's time for some additional editors to join us. People with "neutral" views.

Let us be clear, I do not care about Dr Baileys insane theories. He has the right to push them just like Professor J. Philip Rushton got to say black people are less intelligent because their brains are too small. As ridiculous and as inflammatory as that garbage is he gets to say it. That is "Academic Freedom ". The consequences however are their own Just as Professor Steven Jones found out. I have no pity for Bailey at all.

Charges of "Loss of Academic Freedom " are false, there is no proof whatsoever of any loss and no matter what Alice Dreger fabricates. Saying it does not prove it. Since all you seem to need is a newspaper quote as proof, that is what I am going to give you. We will start with the ethics charges filed against Alice Dreger DarlieB (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * DarlieB: I am glad to hear you say (or see you write) that you want to participate in the mediation. In order to do that, you need to go to here and to add your name to the list of people agreeing to the mediation.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

For now I am taking the advice of Whatamidoing and holding off changing Dicklyon's bad edits. It is a tentative show of good faith toward Wikipedia processes. If Wikipedia cannot resolve this issue the way it should be resolved, then it's certainly not worth my time. ProudAGP (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be prudent. I am building an argument to show that the "Academic Freedom " issue was totally fake and used by Bailey to gain sympathy .  Please post links to articles showing  the "chilling effect" Dreger claimed followed . To date not one paper has ever reported a  case based on Baileys loss of "academic fredom " that I can tell but I'm sure you will have the facts . Please list the specific  of this loss of Baileys  "academic freedom".

Here are two articles, one is in the Northwestern , a "hi quality source " showing Dreger being brought up on ethics charges.

http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=c6222fa5-96dd-47ee-b912-c58a9874fbdf

The people at Intersex International, with whom she used to have a good relationship, are not to thrilled with her:

http://intersexusa.blogspot.com/2008/02/alice-dreger-unethical-ethicist.html

I think we can achieve a good balance by showing Alice Dregers expertise. DarlieB (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither school newspapers nor blogs are RS's. — James Cantor (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. It would not be appropriate to cite these.  However, as background to help us understand Dreger's expertise and how she is viewed in those communities, they can be useful; thanks for pointing them out, DarlieB.  The first will also be useful in any RS disputes, as it points out that we're not the only ones questioning the status of Dreger's paper as "peer-reviewed." Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually Dr Cantor I will dispute that before the RS's board. Here is what good old wiki has to say about our chums at the DNW !

"The Daily Northwestern is a student newspaper at Northwestern University that is published on weekdays during the academic year. Established in 1881 and published in Evanston, Illinois, it is run entirely by undergraduates, many of whom are students at Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism.

The Daily is widely considered one of the best college newspapers in the country, a frequent winner of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association and the coveted Associated Collegiate Press Pacemaker Award. Its staffers are almost solely responsible for Medill's ongoing run of 17 consecutive first or second place finishes in the collegiate William Randolph Hearst Foundation awards program, dating back to 1988. Its former staffers are leaders in the world of journalism; many have won awards such as the Pulitzer Prize.

Although it serves the Northwestern community, The Daily is unaffiliated with the university and is supported entirely by advertisers. It is owned by the Students Publishing Company. Current circulation is in excess of 7,500 as The Daily Northwestern is the only daily publication for both Northwestern University and the city of Evanston, Illinois."

It doesn't matter it's a "student paper, it is a commercially run, self supporting, AWARD winning newspaper. Try not to be bigotted against them because they are young or do you only see newspapers run by corporations as being credible ?  I think it will stand up. The blog, well I think that it's an multinational organization that speaks for a group Dreger seems to have , um , mistreated.

http://www.intersexualite.org/

Enjoy.DarlieB (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding us about The Daily Northwestern's status. It does sound like a good one.  Dicklyon (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good ? They have awesome credentials. Ignore the fact it's 128 years old. Tell you what Dickie, suppose I contact The Daily Northwestern and let them know that Dr John Cantor ,who is editing wiki on an article he was a part of and doesn't think they are a "reliable source" ? I would love to get some journalism students in here to perhaps help wiki moderators see their paper as credible.=)  76.91.31.205 (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)76.91.31.205 (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would welcome a discussion at RS/N. The relevant policy from WP:V is "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers," and from WP:RS are "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." [emphasis in original] and "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press."

Personally, I believe you will have trouble finding support for a definition of "mainstream" that fits local papers with circulations of 7,500 (local), but as I said, I would welcome a discussion at RS/N. — James Cantor (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Daily NorthWestern is a mainstream newspaper. It's students are jounalistic giants with multiple MAINSTREAM awards. Do you consider a Pulitzer "mainstream " ? The good folks at DNW have done all the work for us and I'll bet they are in a major University library as well =) If circulation is a problem perhaps wikipedia would give us a minimum subscriber level so we can effectrively shut out all the small newspapers across the country. I would be happy to list them and then personally write them letters explaining wiki's thinking about their unworthiness . I am completely familiar with journalists and newspapers and while it this a basis of "reliable " it is for for wiki only. Like high school it's a completely fake set of rules where life in real life does not apply.

Alice Dreger made accusations of the infringement of Academic Freedom. In her paper she claimed that three "transsexual academics " formed a conspiracy to out Dr Bailey. Our own wiki says : "A conspiracy theory alleges a coordinated group is, or was, secretly working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities." The academics in no way worked together an no conspiracy beyond Dregers fantasy was ever proved. Dreger was quoted in a NYT's article about her paper but there never was any proof of any infringement of "academic freedom " ever nor any proof whatsoever of a "conspiracy ". That's defamation to claim someone did something illegal and violates "Do no harm" does it not ? Bailey resigned for his own reasons claiming that the investigation had nothing to do with it. .

By the way, do you consider Matt Drudge a reliable source ?

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:

•	Neutral point of view (NPOV)

•	Verifiability

•	No original research

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. DO NO HARM ! DarlieB (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Tuned up the controversy paragraph
The paragraph was a bit of a mess with bare urls as refs, many refs per sentence to the same web page, etc., plus it included Dreger's opinion, without something to balance it. This sort of balance was a longstanding premise in the mediation that Cantor and I had that led to a truce. Moving away from it will not lead to stability in the article. Please help me make it better, not worse. This section is still probably too detailed, but at least it's less overburdened with uninformative footnotes now. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"The bottom line is that they tried to ruin this guy"-Alice Dreger
WHO IS " THEY " ?

This is an accusation of conspiracy with no proof whatsoever ! DarlieB (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again: Wikipedia does not have to prove that Alice Dreger's statement is accurate, unbiased, kind, believable, or supported by facts.  It only has to prove that she said it, in a reliable source like a major newspaper.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed; there's no inherent problem in including this quote from Dreger; but to the extent that it introduces an opinion, that opens the door to also provide opinions on the other side of the issue, and opinions as to Dreger's objectivity. Putting the quote in without the other side is too POV.  The extreme contortions that have been invoked to exclude opinions on the other side can't be tolerated. Dicklyon (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure: if you can find a source that indicates a different opinion and does not violate WP:SPS, then that doesn't bother me at all.  My objection to your previously suggested source is the violation of Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources by a person that is not an expert in the subject that he is expressing his opinion on.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing is correct. Using non-RS statements to "balance" RS statements is not the wiki-way.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is exactly the key difference of interpretation that should be the focus of mediation. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I contend that. The Daily Northwestern with quotes about Dreger being brought up on ethics charges by a major medical association is valid and  i shall put it before the RS's board. I believe the the DNW's extraordinary journalistic history and the fact IT IS THE ONLY newspaper that serves that area makes it the exception to the rule. I have knowledge of the absolute shambles she made of the intersexed community and only need to see see if the victims of Dregers destruction  are quoted in RS sources. Beyond that Dregers quote is libel and I will show that including it is intentionally validating a lie intended to defame people who opposed Bailey and stifle any dissent non academic resistance to ridiculous theories. Much like the church tried to silence Galileo for saying the earth circled the sun. After being exposed to so much information on it that this was a classic case of academic snobbery and black bitter jealousy over  "freaks" having  brought down one of her treasured intellectuals. There is open evidence that Dreger tried to stop Andrea James from speaking, there is absolutely none that anyone tried to silence Bailey. This actually a case of Academic bullying on Dregers part. Enjoy DarlieB (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Darlie, you may be right. But let's calmly work within wikipedia guidelines, focusing on what is sourced.  I agree with you that The Daily Northwestern is a source that can be relied on for reporting what's going on as fact, and for opinions of the authors.  But don't let your feelings about Dreger get in the way of making a good case about the paper.  Much of what has gone on will remain outside of what we can report in wikipedia, and that should be OK.  Don't go along with those who seek to bring their real-world fights into wikipedia, even if you're taking the other side; it just eggs them on. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Where by the way do we submit reliable sources for verification ? DarlieB (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes Darlie, relax. Weather or not something Dreger said/wrote is libel would have to be adjudicated in a court of law.  This is not the place for it. As for where to submit sources for verification?  If you have a reliable source with a HTML link to it it can be used.  As for verifying this or that actually is in a daily NW article, which is not online, like on mircofilm... I think I am the only one in position to do that easily. (I imagine Chicago's "Harold Washintgon Library" would have it in some form.)--Hfarmer (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You can start a new discussion topic at Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want. Keep it neutral and objective, please.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"he did nothing wrong"
Yesterday I removed this line, simply because the sequence of events (in the article so far) seems not to make sense. Yes, the words controversy & investigation are mentioned prior, but that isn't enough to make it natural that "insists that he did nothing wrong" should appear (already) here. Some mention of accusations, such as academic misconduct, needs be mentioned before the accused states his innocence. - Hordaland (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems sensible to me. Actually, most of that second paragraph might be worth moving or deleting.  In terms of the WP:LEAD for an article about a book, half a paragraph on him resigning as department chair is kind of strange.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Been wondering about the second paragraph myself. The controversy definitely needs to be mentioned in the lead, but the second paragraph of the intro feels sort of like an indirect damning, especially with the placement. Probably best to have those details down in the controversy section. Just a single sentence combined with the first paragraph similar to "The book and the theory behind it have been highly controversial, especially among the transsexual community." (I don't actually like the last little bit of that sentence, perhaps someone can word it better) and move the rest of the 2nd paragraph down to the controversy sections. PaleAqua (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on Andrea James
I'm back, sorry but work kept me from visiting the little spin factory known as TMWWBQ. I trust Dr Voodoo/Dr Cantor and his fellow desperate "sexologists "  like hfarmer are here. This article is again suppurating pigslop. Irrelevant POV, innacurate propaganda, lies and  completely unreadable ! Bravo ! You have managed to turn a concise explanation of the book into self serving blather that trades on utter gossip. Why it's like The Inquirer ! If one ever wonders why this psych community is looked down on by the world in general the reasons are all here. I am gazing in amazement on this childish mudpie of stupidity.

Any attempt to portray Andrea James as anything other than an advocate will be reported. I am tired of your side trying to create controversy where there is none and with a malicious  intent  to defame. James took public pictures and place Baileys own disgusting thoughts beside them. The thing that is most disturbing is that no one recognizes how disgusting Baileys thoughts are  yet James, who is the victim off his words  and a TS ,  must be "crazy" ? As a member of the trans community these constant attempts to portray us as emotionally unstable  a form of discrimination. I have a normal life and work just like all of you ( well I actually produce something, all of you learned "sexologists " just ponder your brains relation to your genitals ).

On the "Controversy " ! Unless someone has PROOF of there being the fabled "chilling effect ", because I could find ZERO  , I suggest removing it as POV. I have looked everywhere and now where, but in Alice Dregers mind ,has there ever been any indication that this books discrediting has had an effect at all. DarlieB (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On Dreger, I find articles that merely quote Dreger and had absolutely nothing to do with ANY research. Jack Katz for example who merely mentioned it in an article gets listed as supporting and this is a link to the actual quote NOT listed on TMWWBQ  article page.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/katz/pubs/Ethical_Censorship_draft.pdf

Or Zachary Schrag who based his opinion on Dregers article alone ! So you now have spun Dreger off into two other experts who not only haven't done any research but who's sole exposure is through Dregers article. When they start the WikiInquirer where gossip becomes fact this will play.

Oh and one more thing, quoting Dreger saying "They tried  to ruin this guy " is not only a factless accusation but perpetuates a  "conspiracy myth "  that is completely baseless. If Dreger is to make serious accusations it should be in a court of law facing the people she is accusing and not on wiki  where they aren't here to protect themselves. DarlieB (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)DarlieB (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Leave Moser in
Proud,I understand where you are coming from. But those discussions such as at RSN were not is targeted and specific to each case. Which is what I hoped to be. The only one that was excluded specifically was by Madeline Wyndzen a pseudonym (Though if one looks closely enough she is quite findable.) What we did establish beyond all doubt was that whoever's commentary we use in this case that person MUST be an academic expert on the topic. Moser is IMO just enough of an expert, and his quote is a good summary of what allot of people think. While we can play with how it is presented it should be there in some form or fashion. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is what I have done. I removed Mosers comments on the "basic truth" of the allegations against Bailey because frankly how could he know about the most sensational and damming one's?  If someone can tell me that to my satisfaction I will not object to adding that back. I added Green's comment because Green is as much of an expert on this topic of academic freedom as Moser is.  His quoted statement is on "academic freedom", and his not on the anti-sexologist side. Now if anyone wants to say I hacked anything, or am siding with some clique or cabal or conspiracy can they can feel free to kiss my ass. This is an encyclopedia NOT something that is supposed to be read to make people feel good but to edifiy their minds.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hfarmer, with due respect, I don't think you understand these issues very well. You also contradict yourself. Finally, there is no way that the anti-Dreger views based on vague commentaries get as much space as she does. WhatamIdoing and I have crafted this part, and your edits have made it worse. I will await your response before changing it back.ProudAGP (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that one alternative, rather than reducing the space accorded the commentaries would be to expand the part claiming harm to academic freedom. Several good sources do this. Let me know if you prefer this route.ProudAGP (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't contradicted a thing if any of you would actually pay attention to what I say for myself you would know my position on these peer commentaries has been consistent throuought this whole entire mess. When the question was first discussed on the reliable source notice board I said "They, unlike Dr. Wyndzen, are known to us. People can look them up and judge for themselves what weight to give each of their comments. Just like they can for self published sources authored by autorities on the subject of the publication. Therefore I argue that those commentaries should be included. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)".


 * Richard Green is a eminent sexologist and as much of an expert on academic freedom as Charles Moser is. They both take different positions on this matter and their quotes represent the span of opinions quite faithfully.


 * I understand the issues quite well and I will caution you to observe WP:NPA in your comments. I am not in the mood to deal with any nonsense right now. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For anyone who has not paid attetion. Moser is not an expert on what did or did not happen here in Chicago.  His opinion about what is basically true or not is not expert and therefore is excluded.  These commentaries were published in an open call and all were published, no facts checked or anything. Now his comment on academic freedom is totally 100% include able, and it gets the last word and that gives it emphasis. What I quoted from Richard Green is also on the subject of academic freedom, and not being the last word it has less emphasis.  Not all of those 23 commentaries had the tone, POV, or opinion on dreger and the Bailey affair presented by Moser. Green's quote makes that plain, and to be honest we have to present that fact.


 * I know what you want is a way to make the damming allegations against Bailey officially true in some sense. However this is not the place to do it. Now honestly I have no doubt that what happened happened however I really don't think any of it was anything that any sort of legal or professional standard would be concerned with. So there will never be a trial never be a finding of fact one way or the other.  To accuse someone of reputation damaging things here on wikipedia we need more than what Moser gives us. Allot more. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon et al. You cannot have the sentence by Moser that says "the allegations are basically true." You know why you can't have it. We've debated this thoroughly elsewhere, and even you agreed. I'm taking it out. Don't put it back in.ProudAGP (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Moser thing is a quotation to illustrate the range of opinions, obviously not something related to "expertise". What are saying that I agreed to?  Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Posted Request for Comment at WP:RS/N
Here is how I would pose the question. The concerned editors of The Man Who Would Be Queen have a question. We have the unusual case of a academic/scientific journal publishing peer commentaries, which were called for from the concerned segment of the general public. The paper being commented on addressed a controversy, in which allegations of professional and sexual misconduct were leveled at J. Michael Bailey. In a statement by the editor of the journal (link to what Zucker said) it was made clear that the commentaries were not fact checked or peer reviewed, and that all the commentaries recieved were published. Thus making these comments equal to self published sources in terms of reliability and how they can be used. It was determined by two different referrals to this notice board (link both of the RFC's) that to use these commentaries the person doing the commenting has to be an expert on the topic that we are using them as a source for.

Specifically We have the comment by Charles Moser Department of Sexual Medicine, Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, San Francisco. Some of us want to use the following quotes from Moser in a section of our article entitled "academic freedom". Found in this commentary


 * 1) "Did she uncover a pattern of lies and false allegations? No, the allegations were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct,"
 * 2) "The death of free speech and academic freedom has been highly exaggerated. Science is not free of politics, never has been, and never will be. The origins of transsexuality are still not known and the concept of Autogynephilia is still controversial. Can we all get back to science now?"

That's the set up. Our question is which of the above statements can be used here in Wikipedia?--Hfarmer (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now for the record, so that no one may refactor my POV latter. This is what My opinion is. Just as it is above the first statemedn #1 is just mosers non expert opinion.  (Which I almost agree with, at best we have he said she said, and other accusations that dont even have that much going for them.) However #2 is very much within the bounds of what we can have on wikipedia. If there are no objections I will post this to the Reliable sources notice board. Sometime latter in the day. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not include the strongly prejudical statements "In a statement by the editor of the journal (link to what Zucker said) it was made clear that the commentaries were not fact checked or peer reviewed, and that all the commentaries recieved were published. Thus making these comments equal to self published sources in terms of reliability and how they can be used. It was determined by two different referrals to this notice board (link both of the RFC's) that to use these commentaries the person doing the commenting has to be an expert on the topic that we are using them as a source for." I disagree with this interpretation of what Zucker said, of what previous RS/N discussions concluded, and of the continued assertion that these should be treated as self-published.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Duely noted. Can you give an alternative version so that we may compromise between them.  Please offer an alternative.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you're seeking a compromise, since I don't see what you're trying to accomplish by going to RS/N. Dicklyon (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What going to RS/N would be is seeking third opinions. Which is what one does when a dispute comes up. I have no idea what they are going to say.  But I will roll with whatver they decided. What is it you hope to accomplish by not engaging in the dispute resolution process. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So what is it that you are disputing, and with whom? If you're saying the commentaries are "self published", I can be the disputant.  Is that the point you're pushing?  Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No we can only use information from these commentaries that could conceivably be in the authors area of expertise. Moser and Green can be experts on Academic freedom.  Neither can be experts on weather or not any of them were research subjects, weather or not Bailey had sex with a research subject (or had sex with JSM) at all.  Thus his accusations essentially true comment is not something we can include.  However his comments on academic freedom are.
 * We have to use caution about what to use from each commentary. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting us nowhere fast. I have edited the question in response to your concerns and posted it to the reliable sources notice board. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

a link to the rfc at rs/n--Hfarmer (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)