Talk:Hypatia transracialism controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Can we incorporate more specific responses to the criticisms of the article in the open letter?

@SlimVirgin: Sarah, I am glad that you in particular have taken up writing the much-warranted separate article on this controversy, since this is something you do very well, well enough that I don't feel any particular compulsion to get involved in writing this myself once I saw that you had taken it up (I get the feeling sometimes that, like me, you like the challenge of writing articles on challenging, offbeat subjects like this (Black Twitter, Glasgow effect), especially where the subject requires some deft handling).

I see that you have cited Jesse Singal's New York article about the controversy, which is good (it's how I came to learn about this). I was thus wondering if your plans for the article include reiterating his responses to the points made in the open letter, namely that most of their criticisms of the article don't really hold up:

• ... that while GLAAD does indeed discourage the use of "transgenderism", it does not appear to have found a good alternative and, in fact, some trans activists, such as Julia Serano, in fact defend the use of the term ("... transgenderism has a long history of being used in a nonjudgmental and neutral manner, often by trans people themselves.) Tuvel herself says in her statement reprinted at Daily Nous that she finds Serano's arguments convincing.

• ... that the deadnamed transwoman, whom Singal suggests is conveniently unnamed, is Caitlyn Jenner, who has often referred to herself by her pretransition name and thus "[i]t's nonsensical to claim that once a very famous trans person has exhibited comfort using their old name and talking about their pre-transition life, any reference to that name or life is still verboten."

• ... that as Justin Weinberg's Daily Nous article points out, her description of the process of converting to Judaism is "a stretch", since it doesn't mischaracterize that process or describe it in any objectionable way.

• ... that the open letter misrepresents Tuvel's citation of Charles W. Mills' in the process of accusing Tuvel of misusing his work. Weinberg calls this "just plain false" and Singal says she doesn't come close, reprinting the cited quote, which does suggests that he believes there is at least some voluntary aspect to an individual's racial identification.

• They do agree that Tuvel's lack of citations of any scholarly work on this issue by women of color is a valid criticism. But Singal points out that this is hardly by itself a reason to demand the paper's withdrawal, and Weinstein points out that no one has, to his knowledge, identified any scholarship that would be relevant.

Since the article does, at the moment, report some of the open letter's criticisms, I think it's only fair that those responses be in it as well.

BTW, in recognition of the work done thus far, I am thinking of nominating it for DYK (I won't list myself as a creator; I've made some edits to the article but nothing that would justify that). Would you and Rybkovich be OK with that? Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Daniel, thanks, I do enjoy juggling with these things! I'm fine with you nominating it for DYK. I was thinking of doing it, but couldn't face it (especially the quid pro quo), so if you're willing, that would be great. As for your points, yes, I'm hoping to include them just as you've outlined. I've been spending time today looking for free images, which is very time-consuming, and I've made little headway. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Daniel How about "Majority of journal's editorial staff demands retractions of its article following controversy." Rybkovich (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

SPS

Does anyone have a view on how we should interpret WP:BLPSPS in this case? It says:

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

This is all kind of BLPSPS because it's about a living person, Rebecca Tuvel. That rules out Leiter Reports and Daily Nous, and Facebook posts and tweets about third parties. That's making things awkward given how much of this happened, and was reported, on social media. I'm currently struggling with not being able to quote commentators in full, because RS have only partly quoted them; the rest of the quotes are on Daily Nous or Facebook (sometimes deleted Facebook posts reproduced by others).

Or we could say it's not about Tuvel, it's about that one paper only, and therefore WP:SPS, not BLPSPS, applies, which allows for some SPS:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

That would allow Brian Leiter and Daily Nous (Justin Weinberg, a philosopher). Any thoughts? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't any issues with sourcing opinions. What is the issue? That it is possible that Leiter's blog is not really his blog and he actually never made the quoted statement? I can see a problem citing a blog for a description of the article. Rybkovich (talk)

A states B, if the citation is for A making the statement all good, if its for B then there is a problem. Rybkovich (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem with either Facebook cites - one is for opinion the other one is an official journal page. Rybkovich (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have gotten the impression that both Leiter's blog and Daily Nous are pretty widely-read news sources within academic philosophy. That might meet the exception you quoted—in fact, I think it would (I have certainly relied on it for other articles).

I agree that it's about the paper, not Tuvel, as far as I can tell she's still under WP:BLP1E. Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Rybkovich and Daniel. Rybkovich, it's true of any source that they confirm what they say, so we can't use that as a criterion. To satisfy WP:BLPSPS we have to be writing about the self-published source before we can use it, i.e. the source has to be both subject and object. (Note that BLPSPS applies to edits about living persons whether in a biography or elsewhere.)

WP:SPS isn't as strict. It applies to edits that are not about living people, and it does allow expert self-published sources to be used as if they were not self-published. Both Leiter and Weinberg fulfill the expert criterion. But there are harsh words being flung around about the signatories and others, so I'm hesitant to decide that BLPSPS doesn't apply. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I do have to argue. If a source is published by me, and it is cited for a quote made by me at my source, then there can be absolutely no problems. What is the issue? A more reliable source would be TMZ quoting my statement made on my cite? But I agree to disagree. Moving on

Re Tina Fernandes Botts, statements. Even though she is quoted by a recognized publication, it is problematic as she states propositions that may be interpreted as facts and not her opinion: "there had been tension for some time between Hypatia and women-of-color philosophers, who felt that the journal did not take their work seriously." As opposed to Claire Colebrook, who's statement is unambiguous opinion: "professor of English at Penn State, said in the same article that Hypatia's peer reviewers should have asked Tuvel to cite more African-American women philosophers on race. She suggested that the tendency to argue in the abstract was a weakness of philosophy; a retraction would have been an "amazingly revolutionary gesture"" Rybkovich (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no problem citing someone for facts. Botts knows there has been tension, and she's talking about it. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think there has been tension? Because Botts said it? The legit source Chronicle of Higher education is quoting her, not addressing what she is saying. What if Botts said "Yeah Tuvell she must have been wasted again when writing her article, she always does that." Would one put her statement in the article? If not then why put in her statement that there "has been tension" and women of color philosophers have issues with Hypatia? Rybkovich (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Even if its ok under the rules, If asked I would say that in regards to quotes what Botts said is a problem. But again agree to disagree. Rybkovich (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added that Botts said there was tension, and I've used a reliable source. That's how Wikipedia works. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I've used this page of Leiter Reports because there are no BLP issues, including no comments from anyone else on the page. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Berenstain

Timeline wise was her post the fire starter of the controversy? Rybkovich (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Also when was the letter posted, on the 29th right after Berenstein, or was Bernstein first? Rybkovich (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Heyes

I reverted the footnote re: Heyes because it made it appear that was the only time she was mentioned. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"Made it appear" is not a sufficient issue to erase work of other editors. It is fine to make your own edits, like putting in "In one of her mentions of Heyes". Please respect my work as I have respected yours. I have publicly thanked you for your contributions, not once did I erase a paragraph of your writing. Rybkovich (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you please address my objection? SarahSV ^(talk) 07:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You state "Heyes was one of the academics whose work Tuvel argued against in her paper" and I cite the argument against Heyes. How is that make it appear that this is the only time Heyes is mention in the Wiki article? Non of your text was altered, I footnoted to the article that is at issue, explaining the statement that you made. Rybkovich (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The article makes the point that Heyes was one of the people being argued against, which implies a COI. You have plucked out one sentence to illustrate this, but it doesn't show the strength of the argument. It is misleading. In addition (note: this is a separate point), you don't say what the second objections is, so a reader not knowing that will not know what you mean. Also, have you checked what Heyes said? SarahSV ^(talk) 07:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

What's COI? Strength of Tuvel's or Heye's argument? Rybkovich (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Open letter

Shouldn't the title of the Open letter section be put in quotation marks, ``Open letter"? It seems strange for a letter whose list of signatories is not publicly available to be called an open letter.... 98.14.129.229 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

830 signatories

In the process of preparing the DYK nom, I notice that no real reliable source currently gives an exact number of signatories, and the open letter itself no longer lists them so we can't verify by counting there. Can we find a good source, or should we just rewrite to "hundreds"? Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The best source I had said 500, but IPs kept changing it to 800, so I looked on blogs and there were 830. I can't cite them though. It's a problem: cited and wrong, or uncited and correct. Saying "hundreds" doesn't work. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"Hundreds" is used in the Singal article, though. Maybe "Over 500"? Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It's okay, I found a source for 830. Will add it shortly. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Daniel, I'm just making a note here that the chronology is confused. I think this was not:

• article → independent protests → open letter → apology from associate editors → response from editor-in-chief.

It looks more like:

• article → protests from the journal's editors and others → open letter organized in part by journal's editors → as the letter is circulating, apology posted as part of those protests, with takeover(?) of journal's Facebook page → response from the editor-in-chief.

Until things are clearer, we should avoid stating or implying that Hypatia apologized after protests. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Images

@SlimVirgin I know we can fair use pictures in biographical articles, are we allowed to make a case that it is best to have Tuvel's picture in this article? It looks awkward having pictures of commenters but not of Tuvel herself Rybkovich (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Rybkovich, we can't claim fair use for Tuvel because she's a living person. Re: Leiter, that image should go back into the section about him. It looks odd where it is.

Re leiter, The info re him is right by the pic so it should not be confusing. It looks better when pics are under the line but I don't mind if it is restored to the way it was. Rybkovich (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I wonder whether we're seeing it differently in our browsers. When I look at it, the Leiter image is slightly squashed-looking (because placed above the heading) at the top of the subsection before the one that mentions him. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: the associate editors. They're arguably the most important group here, but you've removed the heading and moved the names into a footnote. I don't agree with those edits. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

ok, put it back. Rybkovich (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I'm hoping to find more free images, so the image situation is (I hope) in flux. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Rybkovich, please don't keep moving text to footnotes, or changing the chronology. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

SlmVirgin: Please recall that I was the one that initiated writing on this issue. So my interest in subject and concern for the reader is as genuine as yours. Most of your edits are great. Thank you. But I am making edits of my own, that I think are helpful. You bring up Winnubust's statements on two occasions. One of them you have listed as a response to the Hypatia apology. While published after that apology her statement is regarding the issue as a whole. If you want the article to be clear to the reader I would combine her comments together. She is not a main player or an important part of the narrative, there is no reason for her to appear at different sections of the article. I briefly stated that in the description of the edit. I take your edits seriously. I would like serious consideration of my edits also. Rybkovich (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

She was a top signatory and one of the people who wrote the letter. We mention her and others where we discuss that, then we include her explanation at the end because of her recent article. Also, there are problems with the writing. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Why this as a matter of interest, when it's in the previous paragraph? SarahSV ^(talk) 06:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Journal cover image in infobox

The use of a 2010 cover of Hypatia in this article appears to me to fail the non-free content criteria. First, while its use as lead image for the article about Hypatia itself is easily justified under the sort-of understood fair-use whitelist, that justification does not extend beyond that article.

Second, and more importantly, its use in the infobox clearly fails NFCC #8. There is no sourced commentary on the cover in the article, because the cover itself is not the subject of controversy. Including it does not help the reader in any way to understand this controversy. And even if it could be argued that it did, I submit that a seven-year-old cover does not accomplish that goal as it long predates the controversy. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. It's not ideal but it will do for now. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Column image

What is the purpose of the cell phone pic at the column on the right. Would a picture of the first page of the article work instead? Rybkovich (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

See the above discussion. I pointed out that the journal cover had not only not been used in violation of the fair-use criteria (Number 8 particularly), but that even if it had been a free image it was of infinitesmal relevance to the article as it dated to 2010, long before Tuvel had even gotten her doctorate.

I don't really know that any image would work there. But I can always be surprised. Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Take out the current image, until if ever, a better one is found? Rybkovich (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I would do that, yes, but I'd like to read what Sarah thinks. Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the previous image, but Daniel objected so I posted an image of the article on a phone as a temporary replacement, because I don't have a hard copy. I can't see how the front page of Hypatia isn't relevant. The focus should be on completing a first draft of the article.

The best thing would be a hard copy of the current issue, either the front page or the article itself. Next best the article's author or the editor-in-chief. If either of you would help to find free images, that would be appreciated. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I uploaded the front page, we would need permission from Tuvel (plus maybe Hypatia) to upload the entire article. Can the pic be made a tad bigger (if so by someone) so the font can be legible? Thx Yes an actual author/editor would definitely be better. Rybkovich (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

We can't upload the entire article even with permission. It would have to be released, and that won't happen. You can't release the image under a CC licence, because there's no creativity involved. You'll have to claim fair use. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Dates

We use the so-called British (actually more like rest-of-the-world-outside-of-North-America) dmy dating system in the article, even though it largely concerns an author at an American university writing in an American academic journal for a predominantly American readership, creating a controversy that has largely been reported on in the American media. Is that dating system an academic convention, or is there another reason for it? Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

As you say, the article uses the international dmy format. The author of the Hypatia article is Canadian; the associate editors who issued the apology are from around the world (including Australia, Iceland, Panama, UK, US); the woman who posted the apology is British; Hypatia is based in the US; the open-letter signatories are from around the world. I have no information about Hypatia's readership. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think in our case the dates would be mainly used by the reader to understand the timeline. Since most of the events occurred in North America we should (I think) use the corresponding dates, a long media article on the issue would do the same thing. An (english) journal like the Economist, would use american dates for a similar detailed article. Because the articles layout is on a timeline, we should use the dates of the region were the events occurred. Rybkovich (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The Economist (and other publications) change their date formats for American editions, but this article isn't that. The "region where the events occurred" was social media. I don't know what's meant by the article layout being on a timeline. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

An evening in California is a morning in Japan (example). If the main events of an article were occurring in the evening - lets say afterwork drive home car accident and happened on December 31 2016. In your description would you write that it occurred on January 1st 2017? Rules (such as the one we are talking about) are there for a reason, if it is unreasonable and confusing to follow them we should not. My vote is to change the dates to North American clock. If we have to vote to decide - Daniel Case would you agree? Rybkovich (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rybkovich: I accept Sarah's answer. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This was an international issue. Rather than discussing end-of-year issues that don't exist in this article, could you deal first with the copyright violation? You've added a cc-by tag to the portion of the Hypatia article you've uploaded, with no creativity added; just a straightforward copy. That should be sorted out asap. You should either request deletion or claim fair use. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Judaism

I would remove " Tuvel examined conversion to Judaism" as its not stated how she used the analogy. I think its not necessary to explain that analogy in detail since transgenderism is the key one and it is addressed in detail.Rybkovich (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove it. She deals with it, the open letter mentions it, and it's one of the issues they get wrong, so as the article develops it will be mentioned some more. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes agree with you re keeping it and clarifying. See added footnote. Rybkovich (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"race is shape "

SlimVirgin Good eye on italicizing the is. I think the sentence is confusing without inserting a comma in there. Daniel Case - Is the sentence less confusing to you if a coma is inserted? I want to go from "beliefs about the kind of thing race is shape the possibilities for race change" to "beliefs about the kind of thing race is[,] shape the possibilities for race change". Rybkovich (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC).

PS what the comma does is makes it clear that "shape" is being used as a verb not an adjective. Rybkovich (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding a comma there is a punctuation error. The sentence is fine as it is (you keep leaving out the italics, by the way). It's a quotation, and the publisher is Oxford University Press. I can't see any way in which the word shape could be interpreted as an adjective. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation templates

Phil Boswell, you know that CITEVAR doesn't allow the addition of templates over objections. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV, I'm sorry, I didn't see your reversion: I went AFK to deal with something and simply continued where I had left off on my return. If I had seen I might have asked you why you didn't want the changes, but I wouldn't have deliberately trampled onward had I know. What is your objection, for future reference? —Phil | Talk 19:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Phil. I don't normally use citation templates in the body of articles because (a) they make the text harder to read in edit mode; (b) I find it faster to write citations manually; (c) there's usually no need for templates; and (d) templates slow down load times when there are lots of them (the load-time problem used to be much worse than it is now).

The only time I do use them is if I'm using {{sfn}} for short refs (as is the case with one citation in this article). Just FYI for the future, WP:CITEVAR cautions against converting well-formed manual refs to citation templates unless there's consensus. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Re constant RE-EDITING and DELETION OF OTHER EDITOR'S WORK

To anyone who has had significant sections of their work edited and erased without discussion and decides to file a complaint, my work has been similarly deleted and revised. If you decide to file a complaint and need assistance please let me know and I will gladly assist. I have notes and edit times of instances involving undiscussed erasing and editing of my work by SlimVirgin/SarahSV.

Why I am posting re this now - I have not visited the article in several days and now that Im back I see that again that significant portions of my work have been erased. I am now completely discouraged from making any edits as it is reasonable to think that they will be erased by SlimVirgin/SarahSV at any time and without consultation. Unfortunately, I currently do not have time to go through the complaint process, but I will gladly assist someone who has similar issues and initiates it.

SlimVirgin/SaraSV - re this post, there is no need for any replies (unless they are intended for other editors). I have tried to work with SlimVirgin/SarahSV and resolve several issues regarding her edits on multiple occasions, but it has not led to any productive solutions. SlimVirgin/SaraSV please do not erase or edit this statement. Rybkovich (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll be happy to explain each edit to anyone who asks. The only edits I made recently that affected your footnotes, and seem to have triggered this, were to replace your words with the sources', something I often do in footnotes, including with my own words. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, one of the things I asked you to remove was File:Defence of transracialism article front page.jpg, the image of the first page of the article, which is still on Commons with a cc-by tag. We can't release text that is owned by someone else, so you need to ask that that be deleted. See Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Top signatory?

The article mentions people who were "top signatories" or "one of the top signatories" to the open letter but doesn't make it clear how a top signatory is defined. Is a top signatory one of the first people to sign, or one of the most well-known, or one of the most influential in the field, or something else? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)