Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Man Who Would Be Queen article.
	This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:LGBTProjectLGBT articles	WikiProject LGBT studies	(Rated B-Class)
	LGBT portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies (talk), which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

Archives
/Archive 1 (through 2007) /Archive 2 (through May 2008) /Archive 3 controversy discussion /Archive 4 (proposed controversy revisions /Archive 5 (proposed controversy revisions) /Archive 6 (RS noticeboard)

Contents 1 Adding notification of deletion discussion entry for Template:BBL sidebar 2 Collected references 3 Today's efforts 4 Basic rules 5 Calling for the deletion of the "Loss if Academic Freedoms" section 6 warning-

[edit] Adding notification of deletion discussion entry for Template:BBL sidebar

[edit] Collected references

[edit] Today's efforts

I'm sure that DarlieB expected just about everything done today to get reverted for exactly the same reasons that already fill several of the archives listed above, but the "spokesman" issue is new, so here's the explanation: a spokesperson never speaks for himself; s/he speaks for the organization. Therefore it is not "Alan Cubbage" that says X or Y, but the organization itself that says whatever comes out of his mouth.

It is directly analogous to an attorney speaking in court on behalf of a client: it may look like the attorney's lips are the ones that are moving, but in the eyes of the court, only the client is speaking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It was as reported and was a more accurate quote since it was Alan Cubbage who spoke for the university who made the statement. Again , whether it is true or not is another thing as the actual investigation during which Bailey resigned was closed to the public and kept in secret.DarlieB (talk) DarlieB (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your response. My objection is to your insistence on including the name of the specific person that NWU hired to make its formal announcements. I think that including his name is utterly superfluous and therefore a WP:DUE violation. You seem to think that it's important for some reason, but you have not explained what that reason might be.

Are you now claiming that the identity of the NWU spokesperson was kept a secret? Or does your link about secrecy refer to what NWU said (=the point that is NOT under discussion here), instead of which person they hired to make the statement (=the point that IS under discussion here)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, it was "as reported" in the article cited as the source of statement . You "think" is not a reason for not excluding it , it is directly from the source . Oh, I see now there is some "conspiracy" I'm supposed to be alleging ? Oh please , I'm not Dreger DarlieB (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, show me ANY proof of a" chilling effect" from criticism of Baileys book ? Better yet, show me a scientist or researcher that believes that the statement of ones theories comes without consequence. This completely contrived "academic freedom " section has absolutely no basis in fact or evidence in the real world. DarlieB (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's try sticking to the subject at hand. I think that naming the specific individual person that NWU hired as its spokesperson is trivial, unimportant, and places undue weight on the statement. I think this in part because the actual content of the statement would be the same no matter who NWU hired to make statements for it.

WP:DUE says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

You seem to think that we should provide details about who NWU employed as its spokesperson simply because we can verify the fact, regardless of whether this is an appropriate depth of detail or quantity of text surrounding a fairly simple statement. Do I understand your position correctly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought we should included the spokesman's name because that was exactly who the article named as having made the statement. As if when Scott McClellan was making statements for the Whitehouse you dont say "The Whitehouse " said them , you name the spokesman. But then "weight" was not your concern really, was it ? Adding one persons name is not what "not adding undue weight" means . You have perverted the meaning.DarlieB (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Basic rules

DarlieB,

I just want to be clear that you've been bold, and you've been reverted three times now, by two different editors, and that means that you do not have consensus for your additions, so you should stop adding them, and explain what you want to add, why you think it's important, and what sources support it before you edit the article again. The burden is on you to justify your additions, but you may not simply ignore the opposition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. DarlieB obviously doesn't know how to be an appropriate wikipedia editor. On the other hand, there's a good point behind the statement attributed to Moser, just not very well made. If you want to be more productive, instead of a simple revert you could try to help DarlieB by showing what a proper statement based on Moser might look like. Moser is basically saying that Dreger got it wrong, that such tactics of complaining to the authorities are not new, not wrong, and not at attack on academic freedom. It's a good alternative POV to add at that point, don't you think? Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing's goal is not to improve the article nor add clarity Dickylon , he is here to push his POV into what was the most blatantly false and fabricated article on wiki filled with unsourced lies and assumptions. Wiki's neutrality clause states:

"Each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias."

Till recently this article was nothing more than an extension of Alice Dregers factless, amateur assumption . IGNORE THE OPPOSITION ?????? I HAVE IN FACT ASKED ON THIS FORUM OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS ANY PROOF THIS BOOK CAUSED ANY LOSS OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM ! ANY ! I WROTE AN ENTRE SECTION ON IT IN DISCUSSION ! The entire "Academic Freedom" section itself is in this article because of one newspaper article on Dregers "amateur" research and not for any result or effect that led to that conclusion ! The hypocrisy is thick as on the one hand you filled this article with your clearly hate filled POV while reverting anything that didn't smell like your own spoor ! Meanwhile you have ignored every question I have posted on it. Oh it's not just Moser who disagrees with Baileys fantasy "suppression " , it's everyone. No, the burden of proof is on you and I am warning you now, unless you come up with proof this section has some proof other than Dregers illusion I calling for it's deletion entirely. YOU CAN'T GIVE BAILEY'S ATTACK STATEMENT WITH NO BALANCE ! It's an assault by innuendo on every critic ( thousands of them ) who disagreed with Bailey's methods and conclusions . I know you are here to protect Bailey but it's not balanced nor fair . YOU PROVE IT !

Now I've written nothing attacking Bailey and in the beginning even Cantor said my edits were the "most neutral ". Two editors is NOT consensus when there are fifteen on this article. Oh and Dickylon found that my point was valid so that makes two to two and removes your "consensus" baloney all together ( by the way , where are the sections we get to vote on YOUR additions ?) . You knew there was a basis to challenge Baileys assertions of suppression based in the responses from all his critics ( many of them academics ) and yet you left that up. To me that is an INTENTIONAL SMEAR and a violation of "do no harm". Unless you have proof of "suppression" , the publisher being threatened, the sellers being threatened or some other actual traceable form of suppression I am saying we should delete any reference to it.

Like it or not I have contributed to the neutrality of this article , not removed it.DarlieB (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If the problem is unsourced stuff, point it out and we can fix that; tag it with {{citation needed}}, or just take it out. But don't add more unsourced stuff or your own interpretations. You can't really contribute to the neutrality if you add stuff that just gets removed for lack of reliable sourcing; and as as W points out, fighting to include the name of a spokesperson is just a bit silly. Dicklyon (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Dick, the Moser source isn't a good one for saying anything beyond Moser's own opinion. It doesn't support the actual statement that DarlieB was trying to make (unless you take it as a single example of the existence of critics, and assume that if one exists, there must be "many").

DarlieB, please direct your attention to the previous section, and see if we can get a single, small, low-stakes dispute resolved. Then, if you want, we can try something more complicated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The hypocrisy  ! It's exactly what you have done with Dreger WAID ! You take a single example of a clearly bias person and QUOTE THEM FIVE TIMES though out through other people, none of them holding the same opinion , just quoting her . The only reason those quotes aren't in now is because of me, not any of you ! Moser's opinion os as good as Dreger and his quotes were properly sourced from published articles . The idea of you saying " single example of the existence of critics " is hilarious. Dregers paper spouting fabricated delusions of conspiracies fighting the freedom of speech is the most horrific distortion of the truth ever ! 23 papers were written against hers not even counting McCloskey he said OUTRIGHT THERE WAS NOTHING BEYOND NORMAL ACADEMIC CRITICISM  ! And all in complete defiance of Baileys accusations of the loss of "Academic Freedom " baloney. One critic, that is such an intentionally fraudulent statement.

WAID , you have not sourced the " Loss of Academic Freedom" beyond more that one bigoted , self serving person . Dreger, the amateur , untrained detective who has no history of investigations and has never produced evidence for scrutiny. One person you base the entire section on but that was sure good enough for you. You have smeared accredited academics along with the transgender academics community by making these false accusations of suppression with no proof whatsoever beyond an amateurs guesses so I wouldn't be babbling on to my sourcing. DarlieB (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

DarlieB, you're not wrong in some of these assessments, perhaps, but you can't get away with just publishing your gut feelings in wikipedia. Bring some sources to our attention here, preferably in calm language, and I'll be happy to help you figure out how to add info to the article while respecting policy. This is not a problem with wikipedia – it's a problem with your editing. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

DarlieB, if you can't engage in a productive conversation about a very simple matter (above), then I simply have no reason to believe that a conversation about a more complex matter is worth our time and energy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing , the only conversations you consider "productive" are the ones you don't lose  ! Amazing ! Calling 2 people out of probably 17 editors on this article a "consensus" , constant personal insults and snide personal references aimed at other editors , then attacking things you know are true rather than properly formating them. Your push for excluding Moser is based on nothing other than your desire for this article to be as bias as possible in favor of Dr Bailey. This is not neutrality , it is disgusting manipulation . This article is still filled with nonsense and propaganda and it's time to cleanse it ! DarlieB (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Dickylon, your adhering to wiki rules must have been what got you banned so many times.DarlieB (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never been banned from wikipedia; just a few temporary blocks for too many reverts in one day. And sounds like time for you to review WP:NPA. Dicklyon (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Many editors don't know the distinction, so here's the summary: WP:BLOCK is what Wikipedia does to temporarily stop a problem. It is invoked, for example, when a spate of disruptive behavior might indicate that an account has been cracked. WP:BAN is normally permanent, and indicates that the editor is not welcome on Wikipedia any longer because the community has given up hope that the editor will be helpful. Sometimes bans are restricted to a topic (e.g., this editor is no longer allowed to edit articles about Israeli-Palestinian relations). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny Dick, I got banned temporarily only once for the same so at this point I'm the good person. :) DarlieB (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Calling for the deletion of the "Loss if Academic Freedoms" section

ATTENTION FELLOW EDITORS ! The " Loss of Academic Freedom" should be removed as it is based on one single person POV and not based on anything factual or proven . There has been absolutely no proof of any of the "chilling effect " or loss of freedoms . Dreger, the amateur , untrained detective with no history of investigations and has never produced evidence of such for scrutiny to back these accusations . It smears real life accredited academics along with the transgender academics community with unfounded, factless , gender hate fueled lies . This never should have been included in this article and contains absolutely no insight to add to Baileys books or theories. It merely fuels serves as propaganda in a professors war against his own failed career. It's inclusion is shameful proof this article was forged by his colleges without a single care for honesty or neutrality.

With that I am calling for Dr Baileys colleges to come forward again and provide proof of the accusations. The book met wide release, there was never any supression ever. Please provide threats against publisher , back room deals to made to ruin , anything that shows that academic freedom was suppressed . Otherwise there is no reason for it to be included at all , not even as a footnote. This article has been purged of the insane conspiracy theories of Alice Dreger and now the last remnants of this anti-transgender propaganda must go. If we are duty bound to remove untrue , unsourced material, this was the first thing that should have gone. DarlieB (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't need proof that having several transsexual activists publicly humiliate your children, attempt to have you fired, and attempt to have you put in jail actually caused a measurable loss of freedom. We only need to demonstrate that reliable sources talked about this issue -- which we have done, amply. Both supporters and detractors have discussed this issue. WP:DUE therefore requires us to include it.

The section is a POV-pushing mess at the moment -- e.g., it mis-attributes Carey's writing to Dreger in an effort to pretend that Dreger is the only person on the planet that expressed any concern about this issue -- but the need for the section's inclusion is clear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol! So on one hand you have to have properly sourced material, OH EXCEPT WHEN WAID WANTS TO INJECTED HIS BIGOTED UNSOURCED INNUENDO ! Your constant reference to James using Baileys totally obscene and disgusting text means nothing when he says it about transsexual kids , but magically becomes "child abuse" when laid against his own children pictures . Hypocrisy ! It has absolutely nothing to do with the claims of suppression of "academic freedom" Einstein ! Nothing ! Baileys personal perversions and sexual improprieties with " fetishistic cross dressing men " are his own problem . SHOW US THEY ATTEMPTED TO SUPPRESS THIS BOOK ! They attempted to have Bailey put in jail did they ? Lol ! What charge did the council of " magic transsexuals " bring against this poor guy  ? Can you go to jail for just being a liar ? HILARIOUS ! You have been warned, without proof this section is going. Magic unicorns , elfs and fairies. All very charming in your fantasies but they don't belong on wiki. Provide proof or this section is history. DarlieB (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with WhatamIdoing here. The relevant matters for inclusion of material is whether it has received substantial coverage in reliable sources. Two specifically relevant sources, Benedict Carey in the New York Times and Moser in Archives of Sexual Behavior, explicitly use the term, thus justifying use of the term "academic freedoms" or comparable, and there is reasonable discussion of the subject. And if there were to be any attempts to remove the cited material, it would be reverted. Continued removal of the material would result in the editor doing the removal being blocked and/or the article being locked. I would on that basis very strongly recommend that the threatened removal of the section not take place. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] warning-

I find it necessary to warn everyone about two rules: we do not discuss the identity of editors unless they choose to disclose it, and the policies of WP:BLP apply to talk page discussion as well as articles. Obviously there must be enough flexibility to permit the discussion of BLP considerations in the articles, but otherwise the same rules against unsourced comments about individuals apply. In particular, references direct or indirect to criminal behavior must be documented to responsible sources, and not made here. I will immediately block anyone who uses this talk page to abuse people on or off wiki in order to prevent further edits of the sort. . DGG (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)