Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-01 Lynn Conway: Difference between revisions

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Lynn Conway
Status	Open
Request date	16:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Dicklyon Andrea Parton BarbaraSue
Mediator(s)	BrownHornet21 (talk · contribs)

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|Lynn Conway]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Lynn Conway]]

Request details

MarionTheLibrarian added to the Lynn Conway page information about Lynn Conway's participation in a controverisal issue. The sources included information published in peer-reviewed journal, the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Dicklyon believes that Archives ought not be considered a useable source, which produced an edit war; Dicklyon believes that the Archives is not neutral and therefore, not useable. The Conway page was protected by Dreadstar. On the talk page, Marion came to what Marion believed was a compromise solution. When the protection expired, Marion edited the page as per the apparent agreement.

Dick changed the content of the text that was suggested and discussed, reverting edits made by the three other editors who were entering information on the Conway page. Marion appealed to Dreadstar, who re-protected the page and recommended mediation processes.

BarbaraSue, a new editor, joined with Marion in similar edits here and at other biographies and related pages.

Who are the involved parties?

• Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MarionTheLibrarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Andrea Parton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BarbaraSue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What's going on?

The central issue is whether the Archives of Sexual Behavior, and in particular Dreger's article in it, can be treated as appropriate and/or "neutral" in the way it is presented and cited.

What would you like to change about that?

That an outside opinion be provided and that the Conway page be edited accordingly.

Mediator notes

Hi, I am the BrownHornet and I have taken this case. Let's keep the discussion on this mediation page. I have a few ground rules:

• Refrain from engaging in personal attacks;
• Always assume everyone is acting in good faith;
• No personal attacks are allowed;
• Keep an open mind and a willingness to compromise to a reasonable solution;
• Comments by any and all are welcome;
• Did I mention that no personal attacks are allowed?;
• Don't make assumptions about the person(s) on the other side of the coin, such as "I like your proposal, but the other side will reject it"; too often this starts going down the path to the Dark Side; and you may be surprised by what is an acceptable solution to the other side; and
• I reserve the right to strike out personal attacks and any other general nastiness. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes

• I have fully protected the Andrea James article for 30 days as a result of edit warring resulting from the parties of this mediation case. I suggest the article be added to this case as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• BarbaraSue (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked as a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

It's a pleasure to meet you, and your ground rules sound good to me.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(Gosh, I'm slow! Marion beat me here.) I'd like to invite all the parties above to provide their thoughts and comments.BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Before I saw this mediation, I made a comment of the quality of Archives of Sexual Behavior. Its on the article talk page. DGG (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I stumbled upon the big BBL controversy mess via the Lynn Conway article, and tried to temper things there a bit, but gave up. Now I'm just trying to prevent that controversy from spilling over too much onto the Conway bio; I'm into articles on technology and technologists, and care little about all this sexology stuff. It started on May 7, when I removed a weasel-worded allegation from the Conway bio, an item not supported by the cited New York Times article, that had been modified here to turn it into an attack on Conway, when it previously did not appear to be one. After I corrected this I found similar misrepresentations and biases on other pages, and started finding increasingly biased small changes by 99.231.67.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently an IP that then became WriteMakesRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and then MarionTheLibrarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). From the editing behavior, the POV was very clear, so I alerted the editor that having a POV is OK, but that in articles it is important to suppress it a bit and leave articles more balanced and neutral. I have not had any luck getting such a behavior change. Now, to the current issue: in the bio, Marion wants to cite the Dreger history of the controversy as if it is neutral or unbiased. I have no problem with citing it, but if we provide what Conway's attackers are saying, then we need to give at least equal space to what she is saying about them. I really didn't want to see the article expand in that direction, so I recommended a "main link" to the BBL controversy page, where everyone's views are well represented, and editors with strong POV on both sides are fighting it out. For the bio page of a technologist, trying to cover this messy controversy would require undue weight. I'd rather work on fleshing out her technical history, which I do have more info on if I ever get editing time without the article being locked. I got a bit done in the last few days, working around the repeated addition and removal of Dreger's side of the controversy. If it's not clear to anyone that Dreger is fully aligned with one side of the fight, and can not be used as the only source in a summary, I'll address that later. I've suggested that a short summary based on the New York Times article be included, with a link to the BBL controversy page, but Marian and Barbara seem to think that adding Dreger's rather negative take on Conway improves the article. I disagree. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to extend this mediation to Andrea James and Deirdre McCloskey as well, as these are two other bios of participants in the BBL controversy that Marion is putting personal attacks into. For example, this diff, which I recently cleaned up after, includes Some scholars have likened James to "the Al Sharpton rather than the ML King sort" of activist and The New York Times reported that Bailey engaged in no wrong-doing, despite James' continuing accusations, both with citations to articles that do not in any way support these statements. In the same edit, we again get the famous Dreger citation, cited as if not biased: A comprehensive, documented history of James' role in the controversy concluded that James participated in generating false allegations against Bailey. In this diff and this, she does similarly on the Deirdre McCloskey bio (and had a bit of slip when doing it to Lynn Conway). The violations of WP:BLP to advance one side of a controversial argument by misrepresenting sources seems like way too much to me. Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon has not provided one iota of evidence that Dreger is actually biased in the meaningful sense of inaccurate in one direction. If Dreger conducted a good investigation and found that Conway, McCloskey, James et al. conspired to manufacture charges against Bailey, then this is clearly a huge revelation that deserves exposure on all their pages. I think she has conducted such an investigation with such conclusions. The conclusion that Dreger found against Conway et al., by itself, is irrelevant to the accusation of bias. I think that MarionTheLibrarian was being generous by referring to the critical commentaries of Dreger's article. In my opinion, these (including McCloskey's response) are of very low quality. However, it would probably be beyond Wikipedia's mandate to resolve that, so it's a good idea. Referencing the fact that a historian came to the conclusion that Conway et al., manufactured bogus charges (but that others have disputed this) certainly does not entail accepting that this is true. Leaving it out seems like censoring something very important.BarbaraSue (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I have not presented evidence against Dreger, as I am not accusing her of anything. I have no quarrel with the accuracy of what she says (that doesn't mean I accept it, just that it's not at issue here). My issue is with you, who represents Dreger as neutral, in a dispute that she has obviously joined one side of. If we represent her negative views of Conway and James in their bios, we have to at least give equal space to their side of the story. And a bio is no place for such controversial arguments. My bigger beef is with your constant misrepresentation of sources, like you did with the recent "readily admits" edits on Andrea James. Dreger quoted James with enough context to see what she was saying, at least; you stripped it away to make a bias pointed in the James bio. This is not OK, especially per WP:BLP. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For easier reference, here is the text I previously suggested putting on the Conway page:

A history of the controversy was published by Alice Dreger, an historian an intersex activist, in which she concluded that Conway coordinated a smear campaign against Bailey. That history, along with commentaries both agreeing and disagreeing with that allegation, appears in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior.[3]

• I believe this is the most appropriate way to inform readers of the existence of the history, distill its conclusion, direct readers to the original document, and still provide a range of opinions on the issue. It’s the most reputable peer-reviewed journal in that field and entirely complies with WP:BLP. Although Dicklyon has posited that the summary violates WP:BLP[4], he has not as yet indicated how.

Dicklyon prefers citing the New York Times’ coverage of the Dreger history, because he believes that that coverage was more neutral.[5]

I maintain first that Dicklyon’s argument is illogical: He suggests that the NYTimes coverage of Dreger’s history can be cited, but that Dreger’s history cannot itself be cited. This is illogical because Dreger’s history and conclusions are the same, regardless. A secondary source in place of the primary source does nothing but obscure information from readers.

Dicklyon maintains that the Dreger history cannot be cited because Alice Dreger and Ken Zucker (editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior) are not neutral;[6][7] they violate WP:NPOV. I believe Dicklyon misapplies that policy. WP:NPOV does not mean that all sources must come to a neutral conclusion; it means that editors must convey sources’ content without adding their own opinion to it. (Editors may not refer to “Dreger’s brilliant history” or “Dreger’s misinformed history.”)

I cannot find any WP rule, policy, or guideline that indicates that an otherwise reputable peer-reviewed journal can become disqualified as a source because its editor or an author has arrived at an opinion on some topic well within their field of expertise. Nor has Dicklyon referred to such a rule. Moreover, there is no evidence that either Dreger or Zucker were not in fact neutral and had any opinion until after reviewing the relevant evidence. Dicklyon's opinion is based on Dreger's and Zucker's having opinions after reviewing the information, which they are certainly entitled to do.

WP:NPOV requires that for expressions of opinion among sources, all relevant sides be presented. The Conway page already provides Conway’s view, the Dreger article provides a published opinion on that, and by providing readers with the location of 23 commentaries on the Dreger article (pro- and anti- and tangential), my suggested text does as well.

Thus, there is no basis for Dicklyon to remove my suggested text.

• Regarding expanding the scope of this mediation, I think we should stick to the neutrality and appropriateness issues, as we already agreed. The solution we hopefully arrive at here will probably inform what should be done elsewhere.
  • • At 18:14, 1 June 2008, Dicklyon wrote: I made some minor edits at the request, as I felt that it misrepresented the core of the issue substantially. Please let me know if you disagree.
    • At 19:10, 1 June 2008, MarionTheLibrarian wrote: I made more explicit how neutrality and appropriateness (for lack of a better word) are related.
    • At 19:49, 1 June 2008, Dicklyon wrote: Looks good to me.

• I hesitate to respond to Dicklyon’s remaining comments. Unless BrownHornet21 suggests that I should address them, they strike me as posturing rather than advancing the actual issues we’re trying to solve.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly link the diffs so that we can follow what you're referring to? Dicklyon (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the diffs"?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Each edit is a diff; find the edit in the history, go to it, and copy its URL, and link it in brackets as I have done above. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In particular, where you quote me with times, I needs the diffs to find those and see what's what. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Separating WP:RS and WP:BLP issues

It has been represented above that I object to Dreger's history being cited on WP:RS grounds; this is not the case; I think it is a fine reliable source, but that when used to represent what Dreger's conclusions and opinions are, it is a primary source. Marion may not understand that in wikipedia, secondary sources are strongly preferred; the NYT is a secondary source (as to whether it has gotten the facts and balance right in the case, I have no opinion, and it would not be useful to have one). My issues are with respect to WP:BLP, which is a very different standard; I haven't said that Dreger "cannot be cited"; rather, that her opinion cannot be presented in a bio without substantial neutral secondary sourcing and/or balancing with opinion on the other side. To have a cabal of editors with such an obvious strong POV editing bios this way, and not push back hard on them, would be irresponsible of me as a long-time wikipedia editor. As to whether Dreger can be considered neutral, anyone who has looked at her web site, or heard her join with Bailey in attacking Conway and James on the Forum program on NPR radio, could not possibly hold that view. Dicklyon (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now re-read WP:BLP and WP:Primary....

• Regarding BLP, if there is a section of BLP I have not followed, I cannot find it. Which rule is it precisely that my suggested text or Dreger's article fails to follow?

• Regarding primary and secondary sources, we both appear to be incorrect. Because Dreger's history was published in a peer-reviewed journal, I simply assumed that it would be treated the way empirical articles are treated. (Empirical articles are primary.) In the case of a history, however, it is the emails, transcripts of conversations, and so on that are the primary sources. (The examples in the above link include diaries and interviews.) Dreger's description and analysis of those documents are is actually a secondary source.

Dreger's article is therefore a valid (secondary) source by exactly the rule you have been advocating all along.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Marion, you mentioned that the archives issue has a bunch of commentaries on the Dreger piece, too. Can you make those available? Do they support the idea that other scholars in the field regard it as reliable, or neutral, or such? That would be useful to know in this discussion, possibly. My email is open, in case you can send copies. Dicklyon (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy as a .pdf, but I don't see how to attach a file to a wiki-email.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you sent me an email, I could reply, and you could then send direct (my email is pretty broadly available, same id at ACM organization, as I expect you've noticed, so you don't have to use wiki email). Make an anonymous hotmail or yahoo or gmail account first if you want. Or send them via a third-party person or web site. I'm sure you can find a way and still hide your identity. Dicklyon (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sent.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get my arms around the issue. That includes reading some of the sources at issue, including the NY Times article and Dreger article. (Okay, I'll be honest ... I'll peruse the Dreger article. It's 58 pages!) My initial take, in a nutshell: MarionTheLibrarian, Andrea Parton, and BarbaraSue all believe the Dreger article is a reliable source, and a verifiable source that deserves a mention in the article. (BH21 Note: I struck Andrea's name, because, after reviewing her edits, I'm not really sure what her position is on this issue.) BrownHornet21 (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So Andrea Parton's opinion on the subject is...? BrownHornet21 (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, Dicklyon feels that the Dreger article is biased, would affect the POV of the article, and including it in the article gives undue weight to someone who is primarily notable as a computer scientist. Including it will also lead to "equal space" editing to present contrary views to the Dreger article, which could (or inevitably will) lead to the topic dominating the article. Have I accurately summarized everyone's position? Or have I overstated, understated, simplified, or complicated your respective position? Feel free to correct and clarify. BrownHornet21 (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's very close. I don't think I would even argue with the belief that "the Dreger article is a reliable source, and a verifiable source that deserves a mention in the article." If the controversy is mentioned, and the Dreger source is cited as one analysis of it, and Conway's own pages as another, that would be fine. What's problematic is to state Dreger's opinions, and to cite them as if that source is not just her opinions. The editors have repeatedly used phrasing like "Scholars found..." and cited Dreger as source; Dreger does not report any such scholars making any such finding, but the thing presented is her own opinion. They have also added negative things citing the NYT article, but not remotely supported by anything in that article (if you want more diffs, let me know). I have been fixing many such things, in the bios and in other articles related to the people and the controversy, and these editors have not been able to modify their editing style based on my attempts to explain this principle. I can accept that they have a strong POV on the underlying issues, but they need to learn to contain that, especially when editing bios. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit struck—and rather confused—by Dicklyon's above statement that "If the controversy is mentioned, and the Dreger source is cited as one analysis of it, and Conway's own pages as another, that would be fine." So far as I can see, the is pretty much what was on Conway's page to begin with. That page has pretty much always included the external link to Conway's blog. Indeed, it's the only external link on the page; neither I nor even BarbaraSue have tried to delete it. Although Conway's blog would not be an appropriate source on other pages, it certainly is appropriate on her own bio page, as I understand WP:BLP.

If you think it goes unnoticed where it is, I certainly would have no objection to moving it into the main text. All that would take is an appropriate sentance summarizing her involvement, cite her blog, and follow it by the text I suggested earlier citing Dreger's analysis and all the commentaries published with it. Have I misunderstood something?

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a possibility. Instead of balancing by removing Dreger as I was doing, we can balance by adding Conway, as you're now proposing. My concern is WP:UNDUE. So make a proposal of some text that you think would be fair and balanced and not undue weight. Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I can refer to Marion in the singular now, since Barbara seems to have dropped out, having been found to be a sockpuppet of an editor previously indefinitely banned for repeated BLP violations of the Andrea James biography. I'm sorry I had confused the two of them earlier. Dicklyon (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate that the assumption of good faith is easier in the abstract than in practice.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! Dicklyon (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• PS&SS: historians and scientists use the term "primary sources" differently. for a scientist, a primary source is the published journal articles describing the experiments or calculation; for a historian, it's the documents and monuments out of which history is built. The Wikipedia discussions of this use the historian's meaning, and scientific papers in peer reviewed literature are considered reliable secondary sources. But, it turn, they are recognized normally to be concentrated upon specifics, and need interpretation, which is provided by review articles and advanced textbooks and the like, which are usually called "tertiary sources" & it is out of such works that Wikipedia is in general is composed. But for any field, an account of the history of something, in Wikipedia terms, is a secondary source; the documents it cites are primary historical sources. This historical symposium partakes somewhat of the nature of a tertiary sources as well, being a summary of the state of the subject.

• • But if there is a question about which of two published summaries is more accurate--the solution seems obvious: refer to them both. there's no way on earth Wikipedia can decide on something like that. DGG (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; that's very helpful. Is there a WP page somewhere that says that? I insert many references to (readable) publications in peer-reviewed journals. I am more accustomed to the scientific rather than the history use of primary, so it might be helpful to me in the future to have such a reference on hand.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The complicating factor here is that, first of all, Dreger is not a historian, and her "history" is not just commentary on her primary sources, but goes way into making opinionated findings about the people involved. It has become a "primary" document in the controversy, and she has continued her attacks in her blogs (which Marion also feels free to cite and has grossly mispresented as shown in the diffs I linked above). I agree with you that we should not be in the business of deciding which analysis is more correct, and we need to cite both sides; a further complication is that Dreger got hers published, but in a journal that includes all the principles of one side on its editorial board (Zucker, Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence, that is), while the commentaries from the other side are only on personal blogs (apparently some others are in the journal, but I haven't seen those, or any citations to them, yet). There's no sensible "peer review" anywhere in sight. How can one treat these as more than primary sources? My objection is treating one as a reliable secondary source while excluding the other as a personal blog; they are much more parallel than that, and need to be treated in a balanced way if the controversy is to be presented neutrally. Dicklyon (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Dreger holds a PhD in History and the Philosophy of Science from the University of Indiana.
• She was a visiting professor in the History of Biology at the University of Minnesota.
• She is currently on the editorial board for the peer-reviewed journal Studies in History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences.[8]
• She is a Guggenheim Fellow in the category History of Science and Technology.[9]
• Her qualifications were sufficient for the Wall Street Journal to refer to her as an historian in the bio to op/ed piece she published there.[10]

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, she's a historian, too. I should have read past her intro "I'm a medical humanist, writer, speaker, patient advocate, a Guggenheim Fellow, and an Associate Professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and Bioethics..." to what she had a degree in. Dicklyon (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We haven't heard from all the identified participants - namely, Andrea Parton. Feel free to continue participating in the discussion. After a couple of days, I'll start up on a mediator's proposal and invite comment on it. BrownHornet21 (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think she even ever agreed to mediation; she doesn't edit much, and was probably included just because she had one edit in the midst of mine and Marion's. We can probably just leave her out. I can't even tell from her main edit if she meant to oppose my changes, or just bungled an edit conflict; probably the latter. Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel fine continuing without her. It was also unclear to me what her view was, and I thought it better to include her than not when writing the list.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

How's this?

Since then, Conway has been involved in transsexual issues. She led a campaign against the controversial 2003 book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, and its author, Dr. J. Michael Bailey. A history of the controversy was published by Dr. Alice Dreger, an historian and intersex activist, in which Dreger concluded that Conway's campaign amounted to a smear campaign against Bailey. That history, along with mulitple commentaries regarding both sides of the controversy appear in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Conway's own account of the controversy is available on her personal website.

I rearranged the text a little bit so that Conway's version and Dreger's version are accessible equally to each other (both from websites) and that the commentaries are accessible equally to each other (all requiring actual access to the journal). It cites both the NYTimes and the Archives so as to forstall the (probably inevitable) challenges it will undergo in the future from still more editors.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good start. I'm not comfortable with "led a campaign", and don't see where the cited NYT source supports that. And the NYT link can be improved to show the whole article instead of page 1. Use the first paragraph about transgender advocacy and activism more or less as it is in the article now, but better sourced; then this on the BBL controversy, which summarizes Conway's attitude to balance Dreger's opinion:

She has been involved in the Bailey–Blanchard–Lawrence controversy over the controversial 2003 book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, and its author J. Michael Bailey and his supporters. A history of the controversy was published by Alice Dreger, in which she concluded that Conway's actions amounted to a smear campaign against Bailey. That history, along with multiple commentaries regarding both sides of the controversy, appear in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Conway's own account of the controversy includes Dreger and the editor of that journal as principals, along with Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence, all also on the editorial board of the journal.

The reflist here mixes our refs, but is useful to tell what's what: -- Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You folks seemed to be headed in a very positive direction! My thoughts, before I saw your proposed revisions, was that it is fine to cite to Dreger's article as her article, as opposed to a group of scholars or as an "investigation." It's not an article by a group of scholars, it's just an article by Dreger. And, in my opinion, the word "investigation" conjures up something akin to the Warren Commission in the average person's mind. It might be overstating things a bit to call Dreger's article an "investigation"; it may be exhaustive, but in the end it's pretty much her opinion, and should be cited as such to be fair. But based on the proposed edits above, I think both of you are fairly close to agreement on that point.BrownHornet21 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC

I agree, but I'm confused...Did I use the word "investigation" somewhere?

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought you did, but you're right, you didn't. My apologies. This diff[11] -- the "comprehensive, documented history" with a definitive conclusion -- made the Dreger piece sound like a full-blown investigation or inquiry. BrownHornet21 (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Marion, thanks for the reprint of all the commentaries (that was still you, right, even though you used a different name?). It's a slog, but I think overall it appears that a lot of people agree that her "history" was very one-sided.

I wouldn't assert that the collection of commentaries is a representative survey, but you can see why I recommended citing those commentaries as a WP-valid way of ensuring that disagreements get cited without resorting to people's blogs.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also added an even smaller balanced mention on the controversy to the article on the Archives of Sexual Behavior, with a main link. And I've requested the guy who protected Andrea James to unprotect it now that BarbaraSue is out of the picture; he had characterized the problem there as a spillover from this mediation, but it doesn't need to be. See my comments at the talk page there. Dicklyon (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So why did you just revert it, instead of pointing out what you think is POV, or which refs you think are unreliable, or trying to improve it? What happened to our spirit of cooperation here? I'll give you another chance there... Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

BrownHornet21: Dicklyon and I appear to be in an edit war at WP:Archives of Sexual Behavior. Input (if approrpiate) would be appreciated.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

YOU MUST START ANOTHER MEDIATION! HA HA! :P I kid, I kid. I'll make my comments here, since this dispute involves the same two people and generally the same issue.

• I don't have a problem with the first sentence saying Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence are embroiled in a controversy, considering that it's named after these three folks, that seems obvious. I don't see how Zucker's tied into it, though, and would leave him out of it (until such time he may step into the fray).
• Second sentence, I agree with MarionTheLibrarian that it is POV to present the Dreger article as "one-sided." Adjectives are very POV things. For instance, calling Bailey's book "controversial" initially struck me as POV...until I saw that everyone *agreed* that the book is controversial. I would remove the phrase "one-sided" from the second sentence; other than that, it reads fine to me.
• Normally I would agree that blogs are inappropriate sources -- has no other journal, newspaper, article, etc. represented Conway's and James' side of this thing? If not, I don't really have a problem with the blog cites in this limited circumstance, given that the only thing they're being cited for is for the viewpoints of the authors. I think that meets the spirit of Wikipedia's policies on citing self-published sources, even though it technically bleeds off of the subject's page and onto related articles. (This article touches on their lives, so I think WP:BLP applies to it.) To be fair, something has to be cited in defense of Conway and James, to help meet WP:BLP. This is an academic feud, it's not going to be resolved anytime soon, if ever. I would rephrase the third sentence that Conway, James, et al. disagree with the Dreger article and its analysis, and cite their blogs, so that a reader has both sides of the issue to review.