Talk:J. Michael Bailey: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:44, 21 August 2007 editNathan (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,146 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:00, 22 August 2007 edit undoHornplease (talk \| contribs)9,260 edits →Use of 'Net Forum as Citation And Other Source Issues: WP:BLP Next edit →
Line 131:		Line 131:

	] 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)		] 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

			:You're quite right, an internet forum is generally considered unacceptable for contentious facts about living people. The relevant policy (which should have been linked at the top of this discussion page) is ]. This article has been listed on a noticeboard which is patrolled by Wikipedians who will attempt to review all citations provided. ] 10:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:00, 22 August 2007

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

United States: Texas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Template:WikiProjectWUSTLpeoplePlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Benedict Carey (August 21, 2007). "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege". The New York Times.

Negative POV?

This article view Dr. Bailey in a very unfavorible light.

"Following the publication of Bailey's book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism, Northwestern University received many complaints from transsexual women Bailey interviewed, who complained that they didn’t know he was using them as research subjects and that distorted versions of their case histories would appear in his book."

Bailey asserts that: a) the two women in question did know about the book ahead of time, and didn't complain untill after it was actually published dispite having seen it prior to publishing, b) the research for the book did not constitute formal research (which was one of the main accusations leveled at him)

In addition, this wikipedia article also leaves out the fact that he was exonerated of all charges in the inquiry by the Northwestern Research Review Board. Cite: Bailey's own remarks in the Northwestern Daily (campus newspaper)

In addition, he mentions all the verious drawbacks to his work on bisexual men, and only uses it as a basis to suggest additional testing.

Now I am unaware of the truth of the matter either way, however I am very certain that this article does not portray him in an evan handed manner persuient to the wikipedia standards, and I call the articles bias into question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.217.163 (talk • contribs)

Bailey was not "exonerated of all charges." You can cite Bailey's version of the facts if you have a citation, but here's the citation quoting Northwestern University officials in the top academic trade magazine:

"...the university will not reveal its findings or say whether it punished Mr. Bailey."

Wilson, Robin (12/10/2004). Northwestern U. Will Not Reveal Results of Investigation Into Sex Researcher. Chronicle of Higher Education.

More importantly, Northwestern University refused to investigate more serious allegations, including sex with a research subject/therapy client, and the fabrication of the child Bailey "cured" in his book with with reparative therapy. Bailey's successful case report and John Money's fabricated success in the David Reimer case have remarkable parallels.

The "formal research" charge was the only one Northwestern chose to investigate, because it was likely the only one for which they were legally liable. It was in fact one of the less egregious of the charges leveled against Bailey. Jokestress 20:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of someone's opinion of Bailey or what he was accused of (especially when it was never even investigated), it is clear that this article has a strongly negative POV and I am marking it as such. Foxxygirltamara 22:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just moved the text about his 2003 book to its own article and will spend the next couple of days adopting summary style for that section. If there are sections that feel POV, please cite specific examples so they can be addressed. Jokestress 17:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"By the end of the book, Bailey has personally "cured" Danny of his "disorder" by forcing Danny to conform to gender roles. " This is not at all the approach Bailey takes in "The Man Who Would Be Queen." At the end of the book, Bailey sees Danny again after several years, and feels confident that Danny will grow up to be a gay man. Bailey never attempts to change Danny's nature in the book, and his other research suggests that he certainly does not have anything agaist the gay population. This article is clearly not impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.95.213 (talk • contribs)

The word "personally" is not quite accurate, since he claims Danny refused to meet with him. However, he makes it clear that Danny's mother follows his advice after seeking a third expert opinion.

Bailey writes of Danny's mother, "In spring of 1996 Leslie Ryan came to my Northwestern University office to seek yet another opinion." He then extolls the virtues of Ken Zucker's reparative therapy for children with gender identity "disorder". That means taking away anything "feminine" from the child. Bailey warns that a world tolerant of gender-nonconforming boys might "come with the cost of more transsexual adults." . Leslie reports back that the cure is working and that Danny won't talk about feminine things, and his Dad is forcing him to play catch. When Bailey finally sees Danny, the recommended "cure" has worked. The last paragraph of the book has Danny emphasizing that he needs to go use the men's room.

You can read Kinder, gentler homophobia from The Advocate to learn more about what Bailey has against the gay population. Jokestress 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I read the article and didn't get the impression that Bailey has anything in particular "against the gay population". I did note the noticeably nasty tone the interviewer took toward the end on the interview. Uncalled for and totally unprofessional if you ask me.
On the issue of POV in this article – just because many LGBT activists hate Bailey's guts is no reason to slant this article as an anti-Bailey article. (If you don't understand this, I suggest you go back and read WP:NPOV.) Discuss the controversy, by all means, but discuss both sides of it. Peter G Werner 00:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take in to consideration that the article which might seem too have a negative POV may simply have subject matter which is not very nice.

It is quite possible that Professor Bailey is in his personal life a good and well-meaning person, but that is not the thrust of the piece. It is his record as a researcher in his chosen field which is, to be charitable, "somewhat flawed".

For such a minor figure, this is a heavily footnoted and well documented article. So unless there is some sort of other "evidence" hidden away somewhere, not revealed by "Google" et. al. I am not sure what is expected here. Sometimes there is just not much you can do to "improve" the image of something. The old saw about being unable to "make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" come to mind in his case. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 19:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Gay, Straight, or Lying" sentence

I've removed this sentence because it simply isn't accurate: "That piece, title "Gay Straight or Lying: Bisexuality Revisited" took an oft-repeated phrase Bailey uses to claim that male bisexuals are "lying."" Please read note 3 in this press release by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. They're critical of the study, yet they acknowledge that the word "lying" is not based on any of Bailey's statments or anything in the study, but is simply "spin" added by the New York Times. If discussion of the New York Times piece is reinsterted back into the article, it should be rewritten to reflect this fact. Peter G Werner 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

From FAIR: "In fact, the Times' headline could have been taken from the press release for Bailey's book, which was headlined, 'Gay, Straight, or Lying? Science Has the Answer.'" Here's the publicity for Bailey's book , to which they refer. Here is it on the publisher's site today. Here's where it appears in the book itself. Jokestress 00:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Was the study performed in 2005 or 2002? claims the latter, saying "Mr. Bailey's accusations are actually based on an old 2002 conference paper (see below), extended by adding a few more subjects and then recently warming it over and spiffing it up for re-publication in a second-tier psychology journal." Mdwh 15:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The methodology was first described in a poster in 2002, but the published paper that got all the press was in 2005. To be clear, these researchers claim in effect that all women are bisexual and no men are. Jokestress 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI--Psychological Science is one of the premier journals in psychology. It is the Science/Nature of psychology. Nobody would consider it a "second-tier" publication. --Felzenmat 04:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

=NPOV tag

I have removed the NPOV tag from this article. If someone wishes to add it back, please specify areas of the article which you believe do not appear to conform to policy. Jokestress 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

why change description of mentor Dr. Lee Willerman?

On December 16th an anonymous editor changed the description of Dr. Bailey's mentor at the University of Texas, Austin, Dr. Lee Willerman from "hereditarian and eugenics researcher" to "behavior genetics researcher".

Since Dr. Willerman was from 1974 on a member of the American Eugenics Society and his academic work is described as "eugenics-themed hypotheses", I wondered why the change.

In the absence of any new/changed information on Dr. Willerman, should it be reverted? CyntWorkStuff 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Results of an Automated Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Per Misplaced Pages:Context and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Misplaced Pages:Image use policy and fit under one of the Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Misplaced Pages, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.
See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE ]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Misplaced Pages:Persondata for more information.
Per Misplaced Pages:Context and Misplaced Pages:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
Per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Misplaced Pages's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer 15:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Just some suggestions for futures editors to think about. --Hfarmer 15:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV on Research Misconduct

Note: tagged before I read this talk page, just based on reading the article.

The use of "Shockingly" and "This represents only one of the inherent flaws in the logical formulation of his theories, as well as his own personal hypocrisy and ethical violations ..." are clearly not NPOV.CarlFink 16:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I stripped this section back to the bare facts given in the Chronicle article. Everything else seemed POV or redundant.66.183.165.57 12:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

oops, this was meant to go into a new section ...

May I humbly suggest that the expression "the vast majority of", say, scientists, is right up there with the expression "virtually proven" for being anti-scientific - in fact, it's right up there with those who hold things in faith.

A philosopher of religion you ain't!

A few weasel words here, no? Peacocking too... That's a fact, Jack. ask123 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks ok now... ask123 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

NY Times article

This article mentions wikipedia. Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege --70.168.11.81 02:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

The introduction to the section, Research and Publications, is clearly biased. I, therefore, tagged it as without NPOV. It quite obviously highlights the most controversial aspects of Bailey's research without really explaining, in a detailed manner, the research he actually conducted. Once his research is described adequately (just the facts, m'am) the tag may be removed. Of course, this is not to say that the controversial elements of his research should not be included here -- they absolutely should. But they must be in a larger, more balanced framework. ask123 15:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of 'Net Forum as Citation And Other Source Issues

What is the standard policy on WP regarding using an internet forum as a citable source? Specifically regarding source number 19. Also, it seems a number of the citations lead to websites of interest groups (i.e. planetout, outintoronto, etc.) In a controversial situation where they can be expected to have a biased view (as they don't present themselves as unbiased sources) are these acceptable sources to cite? They may be, I don't know all the policies on point.

I've added a number of citation needed tags throughout the article to sections and particular phrases where a contention is made that is unsupported by a citation.

Avruch 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, an internet forum is generally considered unacceptable for contentious facts about living people. The relevant policy (which should have been linked at the top of this discussion page) is WP:Biographies of living persons. This article has been listed on a noticeboard which is patrolled by Wikipedians who will attempt to review all citations provided. Hornplease 10:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories: