Talk:David Lisak

Rape category

Can Alan Liefting point to the convention by which biographical articles are not categorised in this manner? On the contrary, scientists are almost always categorised narrowly by their field of study - we just don't have "scientists who study the psychology of rape" as a subcat of "rape" or of "psychology" at the moment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You could have a read of WP:OC and have a look around other equivalent categories such as Category:Sex, Category:Violence, Category:Crime etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

But we do have categories for sexologists and criminologists. Can you explain what part of WP:OC you believe applies here? Recall that WP:OC is about what categories should exist, not about what belongs in existing categories; why do you believe that categorizing a scientist according to the subject of his study, the way all other scientists are categorized, constitutes overcategorization? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And the article is suitably categorised with the two psychologist categories. Isn't that enough? There will never be a "rape-ologist article of course. Yeah, WP:OC is too narrowly defined, so lets say that it is "category clutter" when too many (yes - subjective} categories are added to too many articles resulting in too many articles in too many categories. That make sense?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The existing categories don't help readers who would like to learn about his research on rape to find his article. At this point, it looks like it's just your personal opinion going up against standard categorization practice, so I'm adding the category back unless you can find consensus to remove it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "standard categorization practice"? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The practice by which articles are placed in relevant subject categories that enable readers interested in those subjects to find them. That's the point of categories. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And so what use to the reader is the placing of the David Lisak article in the rape category? A reader would think: Is he a rapist? Is he a victim? Is he an academic? (probably in that order). So a reader will have to go to the article to find out who be is. The same problem goes with he other bio articles in the category. Having bio articles in the rape category is not useful. To quote the overview:

The central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics.

So rape is not a defining characteristic of the David Lisak article. It is a bio article about an academic who specialises in rape. If he is notable enough in that capacity he should be quoted in an article, in a "See also" section at the very least. Now to reiterate what I have already said early in this discussion:

And the article is suitably categorised with the two psychologist categories. Isn't that enough? There will never be a "rape-ologist article of course.

You had used the existence of sexologist and criminologist categories as a justification to include a psychologist in the rape category. Do you now see the flaw in you reasoning? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Alan Liefting appears to wish to apply a semi-automated and purist view of categorisation across Wikipedia, to the extent that he will happily remove categories to leave articles completely uncategorised because their existing categories are not refined enough. Instead of spending a few moments improving the categorisation or (in this case) understanding that these categories will actually assist the reader, he simply removes them. He has been warned in the past that his mass edits and negligent use of tools are inappropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Rape is the wrong category. He's closer to fitting in with Category:Works about rape. Is it possible to make a cross-section between that and Category:Research or the like? A Category:Research about rape? Medical research does break it down into topics but should humanities do the same? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Retired?

Does not getting tenure and instead becoming a consultant mean that a former junior prof is now "retired"?

I see no evidence that he retired except for his own self-biography and the fact that he's no longer employed at U Mass.

The page also doesn't have any mention of criticism of Lisak's work, which is quite widespread.

Djcheburashka (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The Autobiographical material that he has released is a reliable source to say that he is retired. What specific criticism is missing from the article that you feel should be in there?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism/discredit?

I.e. this link http://reason.com/archives/2015/07/28/campus-rape-statistics-lisak-problem/ There are plenty of articles out there claiming this view is unjust to men, none are cited here.88.159.79.223 (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Restore deleted material

This research is controversial, and an account of the controversy is needed to fairly represent the status of the scholarship. The fact that the criticism is focused on one source (Reason.com) was noted. Lisak's research was fairly represented, at much greater length than the controversy. The criticism is not "undue" since it is a valid academic controversy. Much of what was deleted was included in the original article, so deleting it makes no sense unless the idea is to protect the article's subject from criticism that is happening beyond Wikipedia. JCvP 06:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You don't have sourcing adequate for adding all this junk. If it's a "valid academic controversy", academic sources will pick up on it. The idea that this article needs to be represented at the same length as Lisak's peer-reviewed body of work, in Lisak's actual biographical article, is nonsensical. You must know better than this, surely. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)`

Nearly half of the material in the "Controversy" section was in the article prior to my additions. The total words devoted to the "Controversy" section are less than one-third of the total devoted to presenting the research as if it were accepted fact, and part of those words actually summarize the essence of the research and its implications in a neutral way, thus introducing the rest of the article. The sourcing is clear and is the same sourcing used in the original article prior to my additions. Further, the source cited refers to peer-reviewed work concerning the controversy, The Controversy section as written is careful to make it clear whose opinions are represented, and does not disparage the subject of the article, only reports questions as to his methods and his efforts to promote an allegedly unjustified conclusion as if it were canon (most of which was in the article before my additions). This material is part of a very active controversy throughout institutionalized academia and is very germane to the biography of this important figure in that controversy. I don't get why it should be excised; may I respectfully inquire as to whether you have some personal or academic connection to this individual (which I do not one way or the other)? No axe is being ground here unless valid questions are suppressed. JCvP 21:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs)

I took another look and found that the word "allegedly" used in the original article prior to my additions seems gratuitously negative. The original sentence was "He allegedly conducted long interviews". It now reads "He reported having conducted long interviews". Hopefully this helps avoid the appearance of disparaging the subject of the article. JCvP 04:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs)

Lisak just is not a controversial figure. That's why it makes sense for the controversy section to be short compared to the section on his research, which reliable sources return to again and again. Once again, if Lisak's research is so controversial in academia, you should be able to provide sources that show this. I have no relationship to the guy whatsoever, I'm just a longstanding editor who knows how core Wikipedia policies work. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You did not remove only my edits, but significant segments of the original article that raised some questions about the subject's activities, with sources cited. There are no Wikipedia policies calling for articles to be entirely positive about a subject's work, and the article as just restored is not disparaging. I suggest we refer this to a third party as provided by Wikipedia procedures. Do you agree? JCvP 00:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. Only your new additions were reverted. If you still believe you can make a case for the inclusion material despite how poorly cited and undue it is, you should seek broader consensus, eg. through WP:RFC, WP:BLPN, or WP:3O. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you did remove some significant material that was in the original article. I have moved the "Controversy" section to follow all of the research material, making it easy to see that there is twice as much of the latter than the former. It is not my responsibility to make a case for including significant information properly cited about the subject of an article. I have not seen your case for excising significant information. Have you reviewed the Talk page for this article? It seems clear that others knowledgeable about Wikipedia ways also see a purpose to including the controversy and not leaving the impression that the subject's research is canonical. I hope this will mollify you. If not then we can refer this to the next level. JCvP 05:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs)

You're incorrect again. Please refer to WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. It is your responsibility to prove that your addition is adequately sourced and to gain consensus for a new edit. If you still believe you can make a case for the inclusion material despite how poorly cited and undue it is, you should seek broader consensus, eg. through WP:RFC, WP:BLPN, or WP:3O. Do you intend to follow policy by seeking consensus for your edits, or not? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who suggested that we involve a third party (WP:3O) so I will initiate that. At the archived page User:Kendrick7/Evidence of burden the following is stated: "The onus is on the editor(s) seeking to xclude disputed content, to achieve consensus for its exclusion. Anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter. If you want text excluded, it is up to you to gain consensus to remove it, and up to you to persuade others of its insignificance and irrelevance in context." This seems logical to me, since otherwise every article would require that its author solicit some unspecifiable degree of "consensus". Since you are the one doing the deleting here, it appears that the onus is on you. Further, this essay states, "A long-standing guideline on Wikipedia is the WP:YESPOV guideline, and this implies that content may not simply be removed because it represents a minority view. The onus is on the editor(s) seeking to exclude disputed content, to achieve consensus for its exclusion. ... Common errors include: Removal of reliably sourced content. Assertions that consensus is needed before contentious content may be added. Assertions that contentious material may be removed without prior discussion. These are common misconceptions, but misconceptions nonetheless. Being cited does not render content immune from restrictions such as undue weight, especially in controversial areas, however WP:YESPOV precludes simply deleting points of view entirely." This seems quite clear to me. JCvP 02:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have made a bunch of adjustments to the article to attempt to mollify you without compromising the comprehensiveness of the article by omitting relevant facts. Please let the article stand while I attempt to make use of WP:3O. Out of curiosity, have you read the remainder of this Talk page, which speaks to the controversy in this subject's work? I think that the material I added is quite objective, all things considered. Thank you for your patience while I initiate WP:3O. JCvP 01:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Um, that is absolutely not what the policy says. I think we're done here. I've explained to you repeatedly what the problem with your new edit is and what you would have to do to get that text included, and you're not interested. I suggest you work on contributing to Wikipedia in positive rather than negative ways, eg. by correcting typos and broken links, so that you can observe experienced editors and learn about policy until you're competent enough to edit controversial articles yourself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What an absolute phenomenal douchebag Radicleman (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The comments by Roscelese have degenerated into insults. The quotation is actually from the policy. Although the article does report a controversy, it is only regarded as controversial in itself by you. I will continue to revert the gratuitous deletions (deletions that are contrary to Wikipedia policy quoted above) while I seek 3O involvement to get more experienced editors involved. JCvP 05:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs)

I'm not seeing the quotation in the policy. Jpers36 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. The quotation is from a historical archive page User:Kendrick7/Evidence of burden. My search was inaccurate. I regret the confusion. JCvP 02:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs)

Since there's been a request for consensus and other folks to weigh in...to me it appears that Roscelese is clearly in the wrong. Jvpwiki's additions should absolutely be in the article, and a discussion of the controversy around the subject's conclusions needs to be in the article. Reason is a reliable source. Roscelese needs to stop edit warring, and let the material about the controversy stand.NoahB (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Reason is the magazine of a think tank that opposes anti-rape activism. They're not exactly well positioned for us to make an exception to our reliable source policy for them. I'm sorry you were misled by Jvp's invalid 3O request, but if you're interested in continuing to work with this article, maybe you could find some reliable sources that demonstrate that a controversy about Lisak's work exists outside the minds of anti-anti-rape blogs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Reason certainly has its own point of view, which is not even one I necessarily agree with. However, it's a nationally known magazine. We certainly need to include the fact that Reason is the source, so it's biases are clear. But removing the fact that there's a controversy misinforms readers.NoahB (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The existence of reliable (not just famous) sources documenting a controversy is a prerequisite for claiming that a controversy exists. All sorts of unreliable sources gin up all sorts of "controversies", but that's not how wikipedia rolls. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Jvpwiki, if you don't follow the rules and provide a neutral account of the dispute at WP:3O, there's no way that any result can be valid. I suggest again that you step away from this article until you are able to edit competently and in good faith, without violating RS or DUE and without repeatedly claiming that quotations which are not from policy are from policy. I do not believe that you are competent to file an RFC on this issue given your inability to file a valid 3O request. Would you like me to file the RFC for you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is the account of the dispute I provided at WP:3O: "Disagreement about whether content concerning controversy related to article subject's research on sexual assault should be included in the article." How is this not sufficiently neutral? JCvP 02:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: The request has been removed due to having been fulfilled by the Third Opinion given by NoahB, above, and may not be refiled. If that opinion is not sufficient to settle the dispute, then consider Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Formal Mediation, or Request for Comments. I would, however, point out that a non-neutral request at 3O or at another DR venue will not ordinarily result in an invalid result. Volunteers at those venues generally do not rely on the summaries except to get the most general idea of the nature of the dispute and they will either request responses from the other editors in the dispute or read the discussion before jumping in. I would also point out that 3O's are never binding, nor do they "count" towards consensus: they're take-it-or-leave it opinions, much like stopping a passerby on the street to ask, "Is it true that such-and-such has happened?" Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer)

These comments cause me to wonder if you got to read the account of the dispute before the listing was deleted. Here it is: "Disagreement about whether content concerning controversy related to article subject's research on sexual assault should be included in the article." How could this be more neutral? JCvP 02:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not a "controversy" exists is the entire locus of the dispute. Like writing "Disagreement about whether content concerning subject's spousal abuse should be included in the article". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: Fair point about 3O not being binding the way RFC is; while Jvp blatantly ignored the rules in a way that seems to have misled NoahB, it doesn't mean that the discussion is over. Either way, I'd already posted at BLPN, but that board seems much deader than it used to be, so I'm going to redact my post there and post at RSN, unless you think skipping straight to DR would be better. what do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There's now a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reason_Magazine_at_David_Lisak. As I explained there, I think Reason is likely reliable for Reason's reporter's claims (whether or not that's particularly relevant or enlightening is another matter) and presuming we have the actual articles, Reason is can be considered reliable if they are taking comment from Dr. Koss (who I think can be considered a reliable source). We can continue to discuss it there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've responded to you there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I don't think that it ever hurts to take a trip to a noticeboard such as RSN before going to DR. Even if it doesn't settle the dispute, it will usually focus it more and that's a good thing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

From WP:DR: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." JCvP 03:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs)

It would be helpful to me and perhaps others if there were some guidance from editors concerning the level of antagonism and denigration going on in the midst of this discussion, on the part of one party. Are not principles about the appropriate tone and collegiality part of the WP ethos? Note the word "blatant" above and the accusation of deliberate misleading. Is nothing to be said? JCvP 04:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If the problem is using Reason as a source, you could use this article instead. [1]. New York Magazine seems like it should be a qualified source, and it certainly suggests that Lisak's findings are controversial outside the libertarian compound. NoahB (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not wild about the fact that this source is apparently getting all its info from Reason's questionable articles, but NY Mag is, in itself, probably better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so...that sounds like a compromise, yes? You'd be okay with adding notes about the controversy with a link to the NY Mag article? NoahB (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

There's also this, which cites new studies. [2]

I guess I'll wait a day or so to see if there's consensus, then add a graph summarizing objections from these sources. NoahB (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think a line would be sufficient. Before Jvpwiki added his section, there was a single line cited to Reason, and we could add the better sources in the same place. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so, it's more than a line; I think it's important to summarize the objections clearly, and that took a few sentences. Hopefully with the new sources, it's now acceptable. NoahB (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's still undue, based on relative sourcing. I mean, I see no reason to WP:CRITGHETTO this; we already refer to McWhorter's study which found similar results to Lisak's, and that study is even mentioned in the HuffPo article, so that seems like the ideal place to add "while Kevin Swartout found something different." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Reason magazine has a point of view, but that does not disqualify it as a reliable source. What we should do if we feel it's opinion is to provide the sources in-line. Reporters for more mainstream publications have points of view as well, and commonly find an "angle" for a story. But the argument that it's not a reliable source because a source has a POV is not covered by WP:RS. What we require is verifiability, with a preference for secondary sources (which Reason qualifies on both counts). WP:RS allows for POV sources provided they are mentioned as such. If we disagree with Reason because of perceived bias, should we also toss out Salon? What about MSNBC, or Fox News?Mattnad (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese, I see your point...but I also feel like the research section is getting kind of long for readability. I tried creating a kind of research response section, which includes both McWhorter's study and the criticisms. I think that may address some of your concerns about undue weight without taking out useful details? What do you think?NoahB (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a start, but now that I see it, maybe we can continue our work on properly situating Lisak's research in context by noting its impact in cultural perceptions of rape and anti-rape measures that have been taken (which even allows us to tie in the "landmark" issue being discussed below). With regard to the readability of the research section, perhaps The Vintage Feminist, who did a major overhaul of that section not long ago, could join in and help create some kind of synthesis of the current version and the previous version. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, we seem to have resolved the concerns about Reason by using different sources that discuss the info...or at least it seems to be resolved at the moment...NoahB (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sexual Assault Report a reliable source?

There are currently six references to an article by Lisak in Sexual Assault Report, which does not appear to be a peer-reviewed journal, magazine, or mainstream newspaper. (It seems to be the organ of an advocacy organization, but this is unclear to me.) Moreover, David Lisak is listed in the retrieved PDF as on the editorial board. So this source, arguably self-published, may be appropriate as a reference for "things David Lisak says", but does not seem to qualify as a reliable source on the veracity of those things said by him, even though these are represented in the article as factual. Does Sexual Assault Report have a general "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?

Also: Lisak's 2002 study is characterized in the article as a "landmark", but the cited source doesn't mention this. Shouldn't this claim have a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwanda (talk • contribs) 01:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the cites to Sexual Assault Report are basically Lisak summing up his studies for the Institute's newsletter? It's not a study, but it's also not being cited as one. The studies themselves are peer-reviewed. We could still revise those citations, though. Re the 2002 study, it's the one that's constantly referred to in third-party sources about Lisak; do you have a suggestion for word choice other than "landmark"? (I also googled in case the language appeared somewhere and found this article which uses that language, but obviously actually googling the phrase doesn't give the best sample of what's out there - is there a word you feel is used more often by sources?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist: care to comment? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This was a ref clean up, it was originally down as:

Lisak, David (2008). "Understanding the Predatory Nature of Sexual Violence" (PDF). Victims and Violence. Retrieved 10 June 2014.

...including a link to the pdf. I have no idea what Victims and Violence is, it may be a reference to the journal Violence & Victims but the pdf is for Sexual Assault Report so I changed it. Lisak did co-author an article in Violence & Victims but it was about 10 years earlier:

• Lisak, David; Miller, Paul M. (February 2002). "Repeat rape and multiple offending among undetected rapists". Violence & Victims. 17 (1): 73–84. doi:10.1891/vivi.17.1.73.33638. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link) Pdf. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If the "landmark" status of Lisak's 2002 paper cannot be supported with the citation of a reliable source, surely it must be removed. Also, such a strong claim ought to require more than simply a passing mention in a magazine article.

The references to Lisak's Sexual Assault Report article (currently [9]) go beyond Lisak's own studies, and as used, imply that certain statements are supported by reliable sources. For example, the article says "Lisak ... describes as sobering studies that find incarcerated rapists typically have raped multiple people, with findings ranging from an average of seven to an average of 11 victims.[9]" This seems to come from Lisak in [9]: "In one study, the average number of victims for each rapist was seven, and in another study it was 11 (Abel et al., 1988; Weinrott and Saylor, 1991)." So "ranging from" comes from a total of two studies. However, the Abel study only cites *another* study, from 1987, which is concerned with non-incarcerated offenders, not incarcerated ones. Both studies use self-reported claims from subjects who are in treatment or seeking it. So the statement in the article makes a factual claim that is misleadingly broad, is only weakly supported by studies over fourteen years old, and is not entirely accurate in its specifics. Moreover, it isn't concerned with Lisak's work directly, so doesn't seem appropriate to a biographical article about Lisak, since it only tells us about what he finds, unsurprisingly, sobering. Kiwanda (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm really confused now about what you want. The landmark status of the study is established by the fact that it is constantly referred to, but I also found a source that uses that specific language. You seem to find neither sufficient. What would you actually consider adequate sourcing for this statement?

I'm also not sure why you would suggest that in supporting a statement about a range, it is inappropriate to cite studies that indicate the upper and lower bounds of that range. I wouldn't object to the removal of the "sobering" sentence since it isn't actually about his research, but in general, it's not our job to do what you're doing by deciding whether or not reliable sources that aren't even cited in this article are good or not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

What I want is an article that is founded on accurate citation of reliable sources. The current article, in particular the Research part, is largely a precis of reference [9], a newsletter posting by the subject of the article. I think it's agreed that such a source cannot be regarded as reliable, beyond as a summary of "what David Lisak thinks". Various factual claims are made, even if often couched in terms of what Lisak notes, argues, or finds sobering. Given that such factual claims are taken from a source that is not reliable, in the Wikipedia sense, we are left with attempting to verify that they can be based on reliable sources, even if they currently are not. I've shown that one of the several claims based on [9] is problematic in several ways. I could work through the others, but I'd rather just see the article revised to be based on reliable sources, and discuss Lisak's life and work. As to "landmark" status, you could well be right that the article is "constantly referred to", but: are you now the reliable source? Considered as a scientific paper in peer-reviewed literature, I see that it has about a bit over 200 citations, which is healthy but not spectacular, or apparently unusual in its field. I suppose a reference by The American Prospect is better than nothing, but still, the claim is a strong yet vague and unverifiable. Is there a textbook in its area that describes it as a landmark?Kiwanda (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This one is tricky. Lisak is often quoted in reliable sources regarding his research. However, if there's claim being made about the "landmark" status of a particular study, that would need to be supported by third party sources. According to Roseclese, that test has been met, although I haven't seen that source myself. But isn't the conservative path for us, if we want to mention what that particular study says, is to refer to it? In essence, we'd say something like, in X study, Lisak found Y? Whether or not it's "true" is secondary provided we present his work accurately. However, if there are critiques of that study in reliable sources (even POV ones), provided they are verifiable, that's fair game as well.Mattnad (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)