Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bugchasing/1

Bugchasing

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Bugchasing/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: It's clear that there is no consensus to delist, so let's leave it at that (my own thoughts on the matter align with LEvalyn's below). AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Prose/style issues: Stylistically poor sentences include: "It is exceedingly uncommon for men to self-identify as bugchasers, but among those who do, their behavior does not consistently match this identification; instead, they often seek ambiguous sexual situations, rather than ones in which their partner is known to have HIV."

"But it existed by at least 1997, when Newsweek published an article about the subject, followed by Rolling Stone in 2003."

"However, there are four common motivating explanations."

"It may be a subject of pleasure or the ultimate taboo to overcome."

"But among bugchasers in particular, there remain several common metaphors that distinguish them from other communities among MSM: those of insemination, pregnancy, and paternity."

"But perhaps even more to the point of the metaphor, the physical characteristics of HIV infection are similar to pregnancy, as typically some time passes before either diagnosis could be established."

Overall this article has a persistent problem of presenting the posited analyses and concepts of theorists as fact in wikivoice, leading to sentences like "Since HIV is able to spread and reproduce through the sexual activity belonging to bugchasing, its cultural dimensions—institutions, norms, practices, and forms of kinship that, taken together, form a community situated around HIV status—may be transmitted through viral infection, similar to cultural propagation through birth and paternity"

This article does not meet Good Article criteria, and I think it should be reassessed (and fixed!) Isthistwisted (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The GA criteria are lightweight, so an article with problems is perfectly acceptable. Prose issues are only a problem if they make the article not "understandable to an appropriately broad audience", not if it's awkward or amateur. I think the wording is understandable, if imperfect and imprecise. I've removed, attributed, reworked some of the stuff that bothers you since you decided to message me twice over this. With Greteman and the HRC gone, and Garcia Iglesias attributed, not sure what else there is to say about neutrality. Urve (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve never messaged you? Isthistwisted (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Diffs:, . -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That ain’t no message, that’s a notification for a GAR on their talk page Isthistwisted (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what the supposed style errors are in these quoted sentences; whatever may be stylistically wrong with them, it's certainly not wrong enough that it's GA-disqualifying. I notice the nominator has made 9 edits to this article and 18 to its Talk page (making them the second-most frequent editor, behind only the article creator). It is difficult to read this nomination as anything other than a disingenuous attempt to "win" a content dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How is my editing the page at odds with the sincerity of the GAR I initiated? I think the page has serious problems, as can be seen from my edits and from this reassessment. Isthistwisted (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Garcia Iglesias expressed willingness to talk with me, and I presume any Wikipedians, about the topic. I recognize that WP:OR is uncommon but it is within the realm of possibility to have a recorded video chat with the cited expert and post it to clarify anything here. I have said before but the core problem is that this entire conversation has a bias in a bogus Rolling Stone article which spread the misinformation that a large number of bugchasing cases have been identified. This article would benefit from clarification that this is an uncommon practice. There are many really weird fetishes for which Wikipedia has no article but which are more common than this practice. I recognize the problem with the sources but I expect that any expert would say that this article is incorrect, as would anyone with lived experience.
 * The problem is that no one wants to assign specific numbers to this, but actually, I think they would give comparative frequency info. For example, if we cornered and expert and named a bunch of weird sexual practices that almost no one does, then they would likely say that those practices are more common than bugchasing.
 * I recognize that Wikipedia needs to build from sources but there is serious disinfo here that I think experts would renounce.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  14:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Is your concern that the article misrepresents the number of people involved in bugchasing? The article is very clear that it is very rare, and explicitly states that the Rolling Stone article was bunk. "rare" is the fourth word of the lede. There are sentences like Bugchasing is a rare sexual taboo. I am not sure what further clarification could be necessary. What disinfo, specifically, is not being renounced here? -- asilvering (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I added qualifications from García-Iglesias's new book, which I previously only skimmed. The "disinfo" insult is appreciated, thanks. Urve (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea here is that the article fails criteria 1a? The article reads just fine to me. I wouldn't fail a GA for prose unless it was very challenging to understand. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And 4 Isthistwisted (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The nomination only cites prose issues. What are the npov issues? -- asilvering (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * At the end of my nomination Isthistwisted (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That particular issue was fixed a few minutes after you submitted this reassessment, . Is there any other part of the article you feel violates WP:NPOV? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep:
 * "By 2003, the concept had entered the public consciousness after Rolling Stone published "Bug Chasers: The men who long to be HIV+", an article—since widely disputed for its statistical methods—describing the practice." This seems to be derived from Octavio R. Gonzalez's claim that the article was "perhaps most responsible" for bringing the term bugchasing to the mainstream. I don't think that this sentence should present as fact in wikivoice that the Rolling Stone article brought the subculture into public consciousness, as that's not even Gonzalez's claim—and his real claim is both soft ("perhaps most responsible") and untestable (it's just one scholar's estimate, and if included, it should be presented as one scholar's estimate).
 * "However, four motivations have been suggested." is an original synthesis of four sources, in violation of WP:OR. The explanatory section that follows doesn't textually attribute the suggested motivations to the theorists with whom they originated. I don't think that "And fourth, bugchasing has been described as a political device and action against social norms (such as those tied to heteronormativity) through transgression of particular ideals, which in this case includes rigid conformity to safe sex practices." should be reported neutrally (that is, as an abstract idea rather than a posited theory by named scholars) (just as one example of a bad sentence in an overall problematic paragraph).
 * "[Bugchasers'] identities frequently do not align with their actions." is actually not a neutrality issue, but I'll include it here as an inappropriately vague phrase.
 * "[Barebacking and bugchasing] are not necessarily equivalent activities." erroneously implies (without a citation) that bugchasing and barebacking may be equivalent activities.
 * Isthistwisted (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems to be derived from Octavio R. Gonzalez - no, it's from Romero-Paulo & Cuenca-Martínez, who cite Malkowski. It's worth noting that there is no requirement that what our reliable sources state be "testable". is an original synthesis of four sources - no, Romero-Paulo & Cuenca-Martínez, who cite Forsyth, say: "quienes propusieron un total de cuatro explicaciones ... para intentar dar respuesta a qué motiva para llevar a cabo la práctica del bug-chasing". I added "at least" to the qualifier, but the fact that four motivations have been suggested is not only represented in the source, but even if it weren't, it's a routine WP:CALCulation to summarize that which follows. should be reported neutrally - yes, within WP:PROPORTION to what reliable sources say on the subject -- sources generally agree that there is a political element to seroconversion for at least some bugchasers. Romero-Paulo & Cuenca-Martínez don't equivocate here: "Una de las motivaciones del bug-chaser sería la acción política." erroneously implies - does nothing of the sort (an earlier version was about subsets, but the GA reviewer found it confusing, if I remember right, so this was compromise language to get at the same idea) but since you choose to read it that way, I've changed it. I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole; let's stop stringing this process along. Urve (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole; let's stop stringing this process along."
 * Is there something you want from me? As long as I'm queried about my problems with the article, I'm going to respond honestly. If you think that engaging with my comments is "playing whack-a-mole", then by all means ignore me. But if you do care: the passages I've identified problems with are specified above :) Isthistwisted (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You point out "problems", but I don’t see how any of these are NPOV issues that could merit delisting as a GA. (This is a GAR, not an article Talk page.) What is the editorial bias you see here? What is being given undue weight? All of these sentences (including the one you claim is uncited) are cited to RS and reported on from a reasonable distance based on whether they are facts of behaviour or interpretation/theories. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)