Jump to content

Talk:Lisa Littman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect

[edit]

Following the discussions at

I redirected this page to PLOS One #Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy in line with the consensus that I perceived.

That was reverted as vandalism (no edit summary). It clearly is not vandalism, so I've restored the redirect pending a reasoned reversion.

To save further edit-warring, I propose that this article on a non-notable academic should be a redirect to the appropriate place, PLOS One #Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy. --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the AfD (several times), at least two Deletes stated that "Just because a subject meets GNG", or "As weird as it sounds, it seems her work meets notability yet she doesn’t." Not to judge or position their comments (because they made good points regarding case for delete), but the "strong consensus" of the last AfD and RfC is that there is "no consensus". We should therefore stop trying to "force a consensus" at this stage and step back. Ultimately, the key article is the ROGD article, and that should be worked on. I don't see any harm in an interested reader being able to find out a more details about the source of ROGD in her BLP. WP:NPROF is broad, and NPROF #7 is effectively GNG for an academic's work (i.e. them and their work getting noted in non-academic RS, which this subject has in spades with WSJ, Telegraph and other Tier 1 WP:RS). We should respect the two AfD and RfCs, and "power-down" on this BLP for a period. Britishfinance (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus of the first RfC was to nominate for deletion. The close of the second says no consensus, but to further explore merging the content (and that close and the direction forward is being discussed on the ROGD talk page). To read them both as a strong non-consensus is completely incorrect. As for the actual arguments, I'd send you to that discussion on the ROGD page. Safrolic (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC did not agree to Redirect the article (as you are doing now). Sending it to AfD was a "no consensus" (because it could not be Redirected), and at AfD, the result was "no consensus". Your comment on the edit summary to your post above "Emphatically not the result of the RfC&AfD" conflicts with this. I don't see the need-consensus-fulfillment in progressing further deletion/redirection actions on this BLP now. Why not take a break, and develop the ROGD article to its best (which is the real article that we want to read and get to the bottom of - at least I do, having spent my evening reading on this area)? Britishfinance (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further thought having read both articles on a way forward. The "Publishing controversy" in this BLP should be about the impact on her (of which there is a lot of RS about), while the debate on the "science" of her work fits into the ROGD article. I don't need to read about the deeper technical arguments in her BLP, but I am interested in how she became "launched" onto the front pages (and the side issues with Brown etc.). In the ROGD article, I am not interested in the reaction on her, but more the "science" on whether this theory is credible or not. There is an overlap, but in a way, having two articles allows each a focus on the different aspects; and there is plenty of RS on each one. Britishfinance (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you are over-looking WP:1EVENT? "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." All of Littman's notability derives from the controversy around one paper. Bondegezou (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You make a sensible point Bondegezou, however so is the point that she probably meets NPROF#7 (especially if RODG turns out to be something real per her revised paper), and probably also a technical pass of GNG (I have seen far worse get through AfD). My point is that there is no blatent COI-UBP-PROMO here (I don't think this woman created this BLP, or actively promotes herself), and neither is there any blatent POV-POV Fork issue (as far as I can read from the two articles, they are fairly constructed); such breaches are rightly harshly treated at AfD. There are a large number of edits to the AfD and Talk Pages by skilled WP editors, and yet the critical ROGD article is still tagged as improperly sourced? Isn't it a better use of all of our time to get the ROGD article up to high standard; it is clearly a very topical area and of value to readers (and I am now interested having NPP'ed it last night). We can alyways come back to this BLP in six months time and put it through AfD again and see if any new refs/outcomes would swing it more decisively? Britishfinance (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1E overrides WP:GNG (or specific criteria like WP:NPROF). The point of WP:1E is about how to cover things that are notable. If the notability is tied up in one event, we should cover the event, not the individual. Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not a clear WP:1E as she was not involved in a single "event"; she has created a whole new term in science (potentially) E.g. An Interview With Lisa Littman, Who Coined the Term ‘Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria’. So again, we are at the same impass of no clear consensus (as per AfD), but a lot of wasted editing trying to force one. I don't see the purpose of this? Britishfinance (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one event. She's come up with an idea, but the one paper on that idea created controversy, was retracted and re-written. Classic WP:1E. There's no broader body of research around this idea (yet).
The purpose of discussing this further is precisely that no consensus was reached. In order to achieve consensus at some point in the future, we need to discuss the matter further. Consensus isn't going to occur from everyone not doing anything. Bondegezou (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can create a whole new term in science. I just coined the term "flabbanabbification", based off my study (peer-reviewed and published in PLOS One), which says that RexxS and Freepsbane both say they saw someone flabbanabbifizing one time. Sure, the journal made me redo the whole paper to emphasize that I don't actually have any first-hand, reproducible evidence, but if someone in the future decides to look for people who are actually flabbanabbifizing, at least with my paper they'll know what to call the hypothesis they're looking for. You can put my article at Safrolic_(thing namer).
The publication of the article is the only actual thing here. That's 1E. "A whole new term in science" happens with every study researching some new or theorized phenomena, but until it's shown in the clinical literature, or reproduced, or whatever to demonstrate that it is in fact real and impactful, it's not notable. Safrolic (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have RS that states that she has developed a new theory and coined a new term (rightly or wongly). That is not "classic" WP:1E. The definition of WP1E are "events" and WP:1E notes examples like the Rodney King beating, and shooting of JSK; not developing of new scientific theories (which she is still working on, and continue to get debated in RS). You are not making sense to me, and I feel that perspective has been lost on this issue. Britishfinance (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an academic. I've got a similar job to Dr Littman. We develop theories and coin terms all the time. What matters is peer-reviewed publication. The 1E here is she published a paper and there was a furore around it. The RS are all about that one paper and the reaction to it. Bondegezou (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are your theories spread all over the national press (and other sites – there was a ton of RS listed at AfD). If they are, then you have a shot at a BLP (not a cert given the no consensus, but a shot). A scientific theory, which is still in development and still being debated widely, is not "classic" WP:1E. It is just not. This is closer to WP:NPROF #7 then WP:1E. Britishfinance (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Britishfinance. In that ton of RS, most of the sources discuss multiple overlapping issues that are connected with Littman and/or ROGD, and not all of which are issues of science. The issues covered in journalistic sources included (for example): the results of the study, the data obtained in the study, the perceived shortcomings of the study's methodology and/or conclusions, the review and correction process, trans activism, academic freedom, bioethics and policy issues, and politicization/political issues. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Literally all of that (still all related to the single event of publication) would fit in to an article about a publishing controversy, and almost none of it fits into a BLP. You're using Littman as a WP:COATRACK to try to push a completely undemonstrated hypothesis as somehow credible. Safrolic (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Safrolic: Contrary to your impression, I truly do not expect or want Wikipedia to state that ROGD is "credible". What I do expect and want is that Wikipedia will accurately reflect what MEDRES sources have written about the substance of Littman's study – and do you want something different from that? I also expect and want Wikipedia to accurately reflect what reliable sources have written about Littman herself, and about the controversy. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1E isn't about deleting content. It's about how to present that content. A WP:1E argument is consistent with your desire for Wikipedia to reflect what has been written about the study, but it says we do that within an article about the study and the surrounding brouhaha rather than by having an article about the person. This is for a variety of good reasons, including about balance and about avoiding WP:BLP issues. Bondegezou (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1E isn't about deleting content. I don't think that statement is consistent with a desire to Redirect a BLP, which really is a form of Deletion on WP. I also think the WP:!E argument is just too contrived. A scientific theory, which is still being discussed, debated and being developed by its author, can't really be described as an "event"?. There is loads of RS on or about her on any basic google search that goes well beyond the initial "event" of its publication. I can't see this is a useful path. Britishfinance (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lisa_Littman&oldid=1264656256"