Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:48, 1 November 2013

LGBTQ+ studies Unassessed

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 not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Notability

Randkitty, if you seriously believe this book is not notable, nominate the article for deletion. But please don't waste my time by placing "notability disputed" tags on the article. It's disruptive, tendentious, incompetent behavior. I looked at WP:NBOOK, and it's obvious that you don't even properly understand the guideline you invoked. Nowhere does it suggest that the notability of a book depends on whether sources are actually used in an article: it is only necessary that the sources exist. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• The notability tag says that the article doesn't establish notability. It doesn't. You have 1 book review (with an incorrect citation, I'll correct it in a moment) and 1 mention in a newsletter. That just isn't enough. Saying loudly that there are plenty of sources and there is no doubt of notability doesn't do it either. Sources do. I've added sufficient sources to Human Sexuality (book) to show notability. I don't have time to do that here. Putting a notability tag does not mean that the article is going to be deleted (books are not eligible for CSD, otherwise this would perhaps be an A7). All the tag does is alert editors that this stub needs work. Calling this "disruptive, tendentious, incompetent" only serves to inflame things and if you don't care about WP:NPA, perhaps WP:CIVIL appeals more? It certainly is my experience that talking reasonably with people brings more results (and in the end is more satisfying for myself) than getting upset. After all, we all have the same goal of building a quality encyclopedia. --Randykitty (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Since your comments do not address what WP:NBOOK actually says, they are irrelevant. The wording of tags obviously does not take precedence over the actual content of guidelines. Ergo, your edits in regarding to the notability issue are incompetent, as I said. Why not just admit that you made a mistake? As for the tag being there to "alert editors that this stub needs work", that simply shows its pointlessness. It is obvious to anyone not of sub-normal intelligence that the article needs work. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You were right about the page being 53. Weird, I have no access to the journal so I checked in EBSCOHost, which usually is reliable. But clicking on the DOI, I get to the Elsevier website which indeed says page 53. Anyway, I have noticed that you insist on placing "talkheader" templates even on empty talk pages, despite the explicit instructions to the contrary of WP:TALK and the template documentation. Perhaps it would be good if you actually had a look at the template and read what it says. Might make your life on WP easier. --Randykitty (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If, for whatever reason, you have decided not to restore the notability tag, then thank you. I'm sure that you will find better uses for your time on Misplaced Pages. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive tagging

Randkitty recently placed a tag reading, "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" on this page. The tag was blatantly inappropriate. Every statement that appears in the article is properly referenced. No additional citations are necessary to verify anything. If Randykitty persists in this disruptive behavior, I suggest that he or she be sanctioned for it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As explained ad nauseam, the article does not establish notability of the book. Since you strenuously object to a notability tag, I decided to place a refimprove tag, because that is all that is needed: a few good references and the deal is done. Drawing attention of interested editors to potential problems in an article is absolutely normal, that's what those tags are for. But if you still think my behavior is disruptive, please feel free to file a report at WP:ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Each tag serves a specific purpose. The tag you added is for articles that contain unreferenced information. This article does not contain unreferenced information. You have no excuse, of any kind, for adding it. Persist in such nonsense, and I will persist in pointing out that your behavior is a form of disruption. ANI is not an appropriate forum for doing this, but there are others. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Then go wherever you think is appropriate. I'm done talking with you, since you are apparently unable to communicate in a reasonable and civil manner. --Randykitty (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What I think is appropriate is to remove all tags from this article. You might have a case that some of them are acceptable in terms of the letter of Misplaced Pages guidelines, but you seem to have forgotten that guidelines are supposed to be used with common sense. It's not really showing common sense to question the notability of a book by a famous author about a subject that many people are interested in. And no, you don't get to add a tag to an article that states something factually wrong. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Beauvy has added the following material: 'Consistent with Blum's observations that little work has been done in over a decade, critics of LeVay's earlier research methods have questioned the accuracy and appropriateness of his measurements on which his thesis relies; for example, the structures that he relies on in his research are difficult to see in tissue slices, and that he measured in volume rather than cell count. Nancy Ordover wrote in her 2003 book American Eugenics that the research leading to Levay's book has been criticized for "small sample size and for compiling inadequate sexual histories'.

That material is based on two sources, the most recent of which is the book by Nancy Ordover, published a decade ago. Neither of these sources even mentions Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why, the book this article is about. This criticism of old research, done by LeVay more than twenty years ago, shows exactly nothing about this recent book. It perhaps does show something about the quality of LeVay's research, but this simply isn't an article about LeVay's research, a distinction Beauvy doesn't seem to grasp. The material does not belong here and should be removed. WP:COATRACK is a good essay that explains what is wrong with material of this kind. The sentence Beauvy added about this old criticism of LeVay being "Consistent with Blum's observations that little work has been done in over a decade" is original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that a source from 1991 can be legitimate criticism of a book published in 2011. If this cannot be explained reasonably here with a full demonstration as to how it relates specifically to this article it should be excluded.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That was simply coatrack material. Thank you for removing it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Unassessed LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles