Talk:Lynn Conway/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This is not Conway's personal vanity page

I have not checked this page in a while--that won't happen again--and I am greatly disturbed by the changes that have occurred, primarily those initiated (without any discussion) by Nogladfeline. The most important problem is the whitewashing of the fact that there is great controversy surrounding Conway's transgender activism, and especially her role in the Bailey book controversy. Whether or not one agrees with Conway--and I don't--it is indisputable that she has been accused in highly reliable sources of very bad behavior (lying to destroy someone's career). Just as on J. Michael Bailey's page there is a presentation of both sides, acknowledging controversy, there should be here too. It's only fair, and also, more importantly for Wikipedia, it's only accurate. And thus I've added the mildest possible acknowledgement of this affair. I will be lobbying soon for more detailed coverage of this controversy. It is certainly the most important thing she has done in decades.

The idea that Conway was truly "stealth" for years is ludicrous. I have met her, and she's among the most masculine transsexuals I've ever met. It would take a clueless observer, indeed, to miss this. We are going on Conway's word, alone, that she was "in stealth." (I have met two people who knew her back then, and both confirm that she was fooling herself.) Obviously, we can't make changes based on anonymous sources, but it would be better to acknowledge that Conway thinks she was in stealth, rather than assert that she actually was in stealth.

"They enjoy sharing many interests and pastimes"...Please!!!! That kind of crap doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It belongs on Conway's own vanity site.ProudAGP (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that "in stealth" can have a variety of meanings. Perhaps this is a case of "in stealth" meaning "not publicly acknowledged, not matter what people whispered about", instead of "easily passing without any suspicions ever being raised".

I really don't think that the level of stealthiness is an appropriate subject for an encyclopedic article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it's also in "scare quotes" and attributed, so should be no problem. Speaking as one of the formerly clueless ones, it seems right to me. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, ProudAGP, you're being incredibly hostile about Conway, to a degree that may cause POV issues if you're not very, very careful. Just because someone doesn't share your views on things isn't really justification to start insulting their appearance etc - it's mean, uncivil, and uncalled for. You also seem to be making the assumption that Conway herself is making the edits you disapprove of - the "personal vanity" edits, as you refer to them. However, these edits have been made by a wide variety of people, some of whom may know Conway personally, some of whom (probably the vast majority) may not. Therefore, this looks like an incorrect assumption. I must recommend that for the sake of NPOV, rational discussion, and even your own stress levels that you calm down over this issue, stop making it a holy crusade, and approach the issue objectively and rationally. I'm sure that if we can all discuss things calmly and in a grown-up manner, rather than making silly POV statements about Conway's appearance, we'll be able to maintain a balanced and fair version of this article without unnecessary arguments and stress. I will, however, concur that the line "They enjoy sharing many interests and pastimes" is not written in a truly encyclopedic tone. Xmoogle (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not find Xmoogle's comments above productive; I recommend sticking to specific edits and text in order to improve it instead of predicting what might be said and what might be assumed. I agree that "interests and pastimes" is inappropriate, and I personally agree that the page currently fails to include information in RS's about Conway's controversial role in TMWWBQ. Moreover, I agree that slang such as "in stealth" should be replaced with a more professional description of whatever the relevant RS says...although I am not aware of any RS that says such a thing without merely reflecting Conway's own comments. (Claims on Conway's own website would, however, certainly justify statements such as "she describes..." etc.) Incidentally, although the page uses "activist" and its synonyms several times, there does not appear to be any justication for that term either...there is no mention of groups in which she was elected to office nor mainstream news outlets that mention any instances of activism. (Media mentions all appear to pertain to computer science or the aforementioned controversy). Indeed, none of claims about activism have any sourcing at all.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I added back a few sourced details from the LA Times about her home life. In this edit, ProudAGP had added a duplicated ref to the NYTimes article, and also adding a citation to Dreger; this is probably a bad idea, as the NYTimes, a secondary source, already covers the facts needing verifiability, and the Dreger article, a primary source by a principle in the controversy, would need to be balanced by some of the responses to it; I think we agreed it's inappropriate to expand this article in that direction. Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well personally James, I didn't find the comments by ProudAGP productive, that's why I commented. It almost seems to me that certain people wish this article to say only "Lynn Conway is a big meanie who attacked poor Saint Bailey, and she's ugly and a stinky-head. Oh and she did some stuff with computers too.", which is really not a helpful attitude, and does nothing for the improvement of Wikipedia or this article. And I don't intend on seeing that happen. Also, regarding the Bailey controversy, I believe that consensus has been reached that the articles of both Conway and Bailey should only have a brief description, linked to the main article on those events. Xmoogle (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dick, I'm not sure that the "personal life" information is really of encyclopedic interest. Married, lives in Michigan: sure. Shacked up with her boyfriend before getting married, likes to go canoeing and ride motorcycles through the dirt: Who cares?

It reads like a magazine article, not an encyclopedia entry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The guy who wrote the biographical article for the magazine thought it was worth mentioning, probably to show that she's a reasonably normal woman by most measures (or abnormal, if you don't think most women like to ride motorcycles in dirt -- but you get to draw your own inferences from the facts). What criteria do you suggest for what's "encyclopedic", if not just relevant and verifiable in reliable sources? Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ProudAGP, I completely disagree that Conway's role in the controversy is her most important recent work. Broadly, she has represented transgendered people and interests for nearly a decade. Her website is known to every transperson I've spoken with in person. They speak glowingly of her work. If the controversy bears mention, then it is only as a small part of her activist work. It should not dominate it.

Furthermore, there should be no place on wikipedia for unsubstantiated, disrespectful judgments on manner and appearance. And many of her colleagues never suspected that she was other than a natal female, she was never publicly acknowledged as trans until she came out later in life. She looks pretty good for a woman of seventy.

To conclude, my interest is in maintaining the focus of the article on Lynn's work in computer science, secondarily on her transgender activism, with only a tertiary mention of her role in the apparently very complicated controversy. Nogladfeline (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. The controversy is complicated, and not primarily about Conway. Her active transgender web site predates the whole Bailey bruhaha by a few years; the book naturally caused a lot of activity there, because that's where the community was, not because she did anything in particular herself. It seems the sexologist camp can't understand the reaction of the community and wants to interpret it as Conway having it out for Bailey or something. Looks like they're making another attempt to mess with her wikipedia bio instead of tending to things that they understand. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, technically, biographical articles on Wikipedia are not supposed to bother with determining a person's Most Important™ contribution to humanity. That's really an unknowable concept. Bios are supposed to report what a person is known for, and I assume that, among certain groups of people (e.g., sexologists), Conway is known to them for playing a key public role in the Bailey scandal -- and I also assume that if you chatted with mathematicians or computer scientists (e.g., the context that you know Conway from), that they would say that Conway is best known to them for something entirely unrelated to sexology. A reasonable approach is to present all the information, balanced primarily by whether you've explained each of unrelated issue to a similarly appropriate level of detail, and not (for example) by word count.

As for Conway really only being an innocent tool in the hands of the community who didn't really mean to do anything in particular: That sort of claim is paternalistically disrespectful to Conway. Mature adults make independent choices about their behavior. It's absurd to think that "the community" (for example) wrote and signed and filed a malpractice complaint against Bailey. Conway's signature is supposedly on the complaint. We should allow Conway to own her own actions instead of dismissing them as an accident of what her readers happened to be commenting on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Being known to the small community of sexologists, most of whom seem to be editing wikipedia these days, is not being known to the public, so there's certainly a relevant weight issue here. As for the notion of "really only being an innocent tool in the hands of the community who didn't really mean to do anything in particular," that's absurd; Conway is an activist and a part of the community, and there's no particular transgression to be innocent of; she supported the community reaction, but that's not a reason to label her the leader of it. Obviously she owns her actions, and reports them on her site. Dicklyon (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Conway's name turns up half a dozen times in The New York Times for prominent actions in the scandal. I'd say that is pretty much my definition as being "known to the public" for a role in the scandal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, "half a dozen times" in one 2007 article by a journalist Conway criticized in 2005 for his coverage of Bailey. Most NYT coverage of Conway is about her many accomplishments in her field and her film listing. Her criticism of Bailey and his out-of-print book which sold 4200 copies is a pretty minor part of her life's work, and this article should reflect its general insignificance in the grand scheme of her life and work. Jokestress (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dickylon and Jokestress that Conway's role in the scandal should be mentioned only in passing. For the record, I personally disagree with Bailey/Blanchard's model of transsexualism and regard Lynn Conway as a very feminine and attractive woman. Andrea Parton (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at J. Michael Bailey. There is an entire section on the controversy, detailing accusastions, etc. Although I do not necessarily believe a section is needed here (although it might be), the brevity of what is here is indefensible. Conway stands accused in good sources of orchestrating false charges against a scholar in order to ruin him because she didn't like what he had to say. It is infuriating (but predictable) that several people here (especially, Dicklyon, Jokestress, Nogladfeline, and Andrea Parton) believe that there should be no mention (except "in passing") of her role in the controversy. How is that fair? How is it accurate that the controversy be linked strongly to Bailey but barely to Conway? It is so infuriating, in fact, that I am hereby initiating an adequate expansion of the relevant paragraph in the current article. Specifically, the article should include the information (citing reliable sources) that Dreger found that Conway was the instigator of a suite of accusations against Bailey and that these accusations were false. Dicklyon, every time this has happened in the past, you have run to administrators to complain. (You have also broken your agreement to stay off of WP pages dealing with this controversy.) Please let me know if you intend to do that now, so we can involve them from the getgo. We can certainly begin the discussion here. One thing that must be addressed up front is Dicklyon's false insistence that Alice Dreger's important article cannot be used because Dreger is "a principal." The fact is that Conway made Dreger a principal because Dreger was writing the article, and in any case, it's irrelevant to WP policy, provided that the source is reliable, and it is, highly. We can, and should, obviously link to Conway's pages telling her side of the story, and that provides all the balance that's needed. Knowing Jokestress' penchant for inaccurate reporting, I checked her assertion that Conway is mostly in the New York Times for computers and her theatrical efforts. I did indeed find two articles primarily about Carver Mead that mentioned their collaboration (once per article) but no mention of her plays. In any case, no one is suggesting that the controversy receive the attention that Conway's computer career gets. But it could be a solid paragraph, with more specific information, and still be proportional. One alternative, of course, is that Bailey's page receive less attention to the controversy than it currently does. Discuss. (Perhaps someone will also explain to me why Conway and James spent so much time, effort, and computer ink on their campaign against Bailey and now seem to be so ashamed of those efforts.)ProudAGP (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

ProudAGP, you may add content to the article regarding Conway's role in the controversy and accusations of unethical conduct on her part, provided that you cite reliable sources and write using a neutral point of view. I cannot promise that others will not revert, but I hope that we will get to a point where you see this article as being more "balanced" than it is right now. Out of curiosity, why do you describe Lynn Conway as "one of the most masculine transsexuals you have ever met?" Have you met very many transsexuals? Are you calling her "masculine" because she enjoys dirt-biking/motocross racing and other outdoor activities or because she was interested in trains as a child? Or is it just about your perception of her appearance? Granted, she did look fairly masculine for a woman before she had facial feminization surgery in 1999, after coming out. Despite this, she was very successful as a woman in a male-dominated field for many years. Maybe that's another reason for you to perceive her as "masculine" just because she worked in a male-dominated profession? If these (her occupation and hobbies) are your reasons for describing Conway as "masculine," you clearly subscribe to a lot of gender stereotypes which I do not subscribe to, but that would not be surprising considering that you identify as autogynephilic. Andrea Parton (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

ProudAGP, your handle suggests you are a WP:SPA here to defend the Bailey/Blanchard autogynephilia theory. As Andrea says, that may be OK if you can do it from a neutral POV. But there's no need to include personal attacks; I'm sure that if I had broken by agreement with User:James Cantor, he would have pointed that out; we were basically in agreement to keep the controversy coverage to a sentence or two, just lacked agreement on his wanting to puff up Dreger a bit. As to the substance of the facts on which to base an article, again as Andrea says, sources are key; relying primarily on Dreger will only show one side of the story, and the whole controversy is better covered in articles on the controversy. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon, on this page you are clearly a WP:SPA, because your every edit works to diminish any negative information about Conway. In the past you have removed information that is both notable and true, namely accusations that she orchestrated a campaign of lies against Bailey and his book. You have no evident expertise regarding the controversial material. And as for your breaking of your and James Cantor's agreement, all you need do is look below. He writes: "For reference, here is the agreement that Dicklyon and I made with each other not to edit the controversy section of the Conway page [1], but which Dicklyon has declared he will simply violate as he sees fit." Several other complaints by James Cantor about you in this regard too.ProudAGP (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you haven't actually read WP:SPA; probably that's not what you meant. But yes, my "every edit works to diminish any negative information about Conway" because what attracted me here was all the negative information being placed by people who are on the side of Bailey in the controversy that Conway is tied up in. I don't know how you can claim it's "true" that she "orchestrated a campaign of lies against Bailey and his book." It's not clear to me that she "orchestrated" a campaign (though perhaps some sources express that opinion); it's even less supportable that the charges are "lies," though opinion too may be sourcable. If you believe I have broken my agreement with Cantor, you provide a diff to illustrate that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow well how did I miss this. Since I have no life but wikipedia as someone who talks on this page wrote I should have been all over this. Where to begin? I have read all of these and here is my considered opinion.

This is a biography and if one reads WP:BLP and WP:SPS they both concur that information on a persons personal blog, website, press release, or autobiography, can be used in an article about them. For the purposes of a persons own biography their website is a reliable source. There are limits to this however. We could not for instance take what is written on her website Re:Bailey as being anything more than an opinion. Based on those facts and policies I see no reason that some information about Dr. Conway's personal life could not be included. I also see no reason for this article to not say that she was in stealth for all those years unless an RS report is found which contradicts that. (Though many transsexuals will tell you that people always claim to have known once they are told. Even if that totally contradicts how they behaved. I would personally be suspicious of someone after all these years saying they knew all along for that reason.)

Furthremore as for Connway being an activist. It has been claimed by DickLyon that Conway was an activist, but that she was just going along with the community in the process of the Bailey affair. That can't be both ways. Either she was an activist taking action or she was a bystander. On her own website she has the doccuments with her signatures! That is enough for this BLP to say that she was a prime mover in the controversy. For the same reasons that information about her personal life and her stealthy ness can be included.

That is my carefully considered opinion of what is the neutral action to take. Write about the controversy using what's on Connways website as this is a BLP. Write about Conway's personal life as she reports it using her website as a RS because this is her bio. I have actually as I often do disagreed with James Cantor. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a rule against being abrasive; I do get that way when annoyed. Anyway, it would be more productive to keep the discussion on the article content issues, and avoid the personal traits of the editors. As for your characterization of my position above, I disagree. But back to sourcing: what source says "orchestrate" or something equivalent? What source says "campaign"? What source says it was against Bailey and the book, as opposed to against the book and/or the Blanchard theory? The sources you can cite will determine what you can say; yes, you can use Conway's own pages a source for statements about herself; but you can't WP:SYNTH based on your readings of them. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Lyon please refer to [meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_a_dick WP:DICK]. As you have been recently topic banned from another area of wikipedia it is somthing you really should read. You being annoyed is no excuse for insulting me for not editing in line with your POV. Furthermroe in this case you should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Have a nice day.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my long-term friendship with Dr. Conway puts me in a conflict of interest situation. I am only striving to keep the article well-sourced, neutral, and free of BLP violations. If you believe that any of my edits are inappropriate, or that there's reason to think that I have a conflict of interest that is detrimental to the process here, please do specify. As to whether I'm a Dick, blame my parents, or my genes; your choice. Dicklyon (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation

Per the sourcing discussion above, I took another look at what the article says, and at what the cited sources say. In particular, here:

She was also a key person in the controversial campaign against J. Michael Bailey and his controversial book The Man Who Would Be Queen.

Carey, Benedict (2007-08-21), "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege", New York Times {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Dreger, A. D. (2008). The controversy surrounding The man who would be queen: A case history of the politics of science, identity, and sex in the Internet age. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 366-421.

The idea of a "controversial campaign" is inherent in Dreger. But she never says the campaign is against Bailey (where she mentions an "anti-Bailey campaign", she is not saying there was one, but was referring to a question about an alleged one). Dreger says that Conway "sent me a reply encouraging me to support her campaign against the book." She also reports a private email about "the campaign of a university professor to relegate a book to a kind of Orwellian non-history," where again the campaign is against the book, not the person.

Carey details Conway's involvement, but doesn't make her a campaigner against Bailey: "But by the end of 2003, the controversy had a life of its own on the Internet. Dr. Conway, the computer scientist, kept a running chronicle of the accusations against Dr. Bailey on her Web site."

So this statement seems to accuse Conway of a "bad thing" for which there's no reliable source. Supporting it by a novel synthesis of sources is not a viable alternative. Therefore, it's a WP:BLP violation. I expect y'all to fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

First let me look at a couple of sources from Lynn Connway's own website. An investigation into the publication of J. Michael Bailey's book on transsexualism by the National Academies by Lynn Conway, Timeline of the unfolding events in the Bailey investigation., and The Bailey Investigation: How it all began with a series of e-mail alerts. Looking at those threee sources each of them list who did what when, but in different ways. The second and third ones get down to brass tax that much sooner. The second link is to a spreadsheet which list who did what when. The third one is a narrative of how "the communities" investigation got started. It says and I quote verbatim.

This page documents the onset of the trans community's investigation into the publication of J. Michael Bailey's book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, by the National Academy Press.

It all began when Lynn received a message alerting her to the publication of Bailey's book, on 4-10-03. Immediately realizing the seriousness of the situation, Lynn alerted her friend Andrea James (webmistress of the widely-read TS RoadMap) about the book, and they began digging into what had happened.

Within a few days (on 4-12-03), Lynn began posting information about the book on a new page in her website (that page became the "Bailey Investigation website) and alerted Andrea and their mutual friend Becky Allison. The next day (4-13-03) Andrea posted a review and other information about the book (that new page later scaled up to become the BBL Clearinghouse website). Meantime, Becky Allison began posting information about the book into her Blog.

Based on what they had all learned so far, Lynn alerted a wider circle of friends on 4-18-03 about the book, and Becky posted a review of the book that she'd sent to Amazon.com that day. These alerts and the reviews by Andrea and Becky triggered a wave of follow-on negative reviews by many prominent trans women and men (more).

Now realizing the true gravity of the situation, Lynn began spreading the alert more widely in messages to trans advocacy groups (such as in this message to GLAAD) on 4-21-03. Responding to those alerts, Christine Burns at Press for Change (PFC) in the UK then spread the alert worldwide by posting it in the widely read "PFC News", on 4-22-03 (more)

Almost immediately a widespread collaborative internet-based movement formed to investigate and figure out what had happened to cause this book to be published, and to investigate in depth the "science" and "scientists" behind the book.

The very following day (on 4-23-03), we learned from Prof. Joan Roughgarden that Bailey had promoted his book while mocking gay men and transsexual women in a psychology department lecture at Stanford University.

Not long after that (on 5-04-03), Bailey's research subject Anjelica Kieltyka e-mailed Lynn and began telling her story of how Mr. Bailey exploited her and the young trans women she was mentoring in Chicago - using them as unwitting research subjects without their knowledge - and then publishing intimate details about their sex lives in his book without their permission.

As the full gravity of the situation sunk in even more deeply, including awareness that a serious exploitation of research subjects underlay the book, prominent trans women began openly alerting the National Academies: Joan Roughgarden wrote an open letter to the Presidents of the National Academies on 5-05-03, followed by Christine Burns' writing one to the Academies leaders on 5-06-03 Those letters were followed by many many more to the Academies leaders, from trans people all around the world.

And thus the Bailey investigation was launched, and was on its way.

[2]

So there it is in her own words from her own website. She alerted Andrea James, she alerted Various groups etc. She read about how dirrtttyy old Mr. Bailey exploited those helpless transsexual women. (Makes him sound like a priest caught in the confessional with an altarboy. HA. Both people involved were consenting adults there are no angels here. Nor is sex devilish.) Farther down the page in the email correspondence that is there she says some pretty nasty things about Bailey. I.E. Comparing that book to anything done by the Klu Klux Klan.... All of which lead her to help file those complaints against BAILEY, not his book. While I sympathize with Dr. Connway's reaction to this book and understand where it's comming from, there is just no other way to look at this. She was either THE or one of a small number of prime movers in this matter.

As a black studies professor once said of Martin Luther King and the times he lived in. "The 60's were like a washing machiene the soap and water were ready to wash away Jim Crow, but Dr. King was the aggitator, Without the agitator to move things around your draws don't get clean." The transgender community would have reacted to Bailey's book to an extent. However what Connway did and was able to do becuause of her proximity to Chicago was to stir up things to a great degree. Adding that sexual miscounduct charge, which she helped to file, really kicked things up many notches. In that respect and that respect only Lynn Connways actions on this matter were simmilar to those of Martin Luther King.

What I propose to do as far as Dr. Conway's involvement in this matter is to summarize into a four or five sentence paragraph what I quoted above. WP:NOTOR backs up my doing this. Summarizing that passage from Connway's website is simply gathering information under a common heading which is not synth nor is it or or anything. However I don't see how it could not be mentioned. It would be like not mentioning that Martin Luther King was involved with the march on washington.--Hfarmer (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to using her own words, all of which refer to it being about "the book", not about Bailey. Four or five sentences is probably quite excessive. It would be even better to focus on reliable sources that react to what she's done. Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

:-/ The book was not accused of having sex with JSM now was it? :-\ --Hfarmer (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Neither did Conway accuse Bailey of having sex with anyone, did she? Dicklyon (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So Conway's website says, "The Book Investigation"? Funnily enough, I remember that webpage saying "The Bailey Investigation" -- and I remember it going rather beyond the book, into (for example) filing legal complaints against him that had nothing to do with the book.

Dick, it might be worth remembering that not everyone believes that Conway's efforts to discredit Bailey (the human, not the book) were inappropriate. Your efforts to make Conway look blameless to one group are also suppressing Conway's hard-earned glory among supporters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This isnt the first time he has done this. I miss my AJ at least her edits made some kind of sense to me.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It still mentions "The Bailey Investigation" in places; but it's not a campaign "against Bailey." It's about the book he wrote and the ideas being pushed in int. As to whether opinions differ, of course they do; that's not what's at issue here. We just need to say what's supported by reliable sources. In this case, as the extensive quotes that H put above make clear, it's about the book, and the mention of a "campaign against Bailey" is not supported by any reliable source that I can find. So it should be out unless someone comes up with a source, which so far nobody has. Right? Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Any neutral editors around?

Since I don't edit this section, someone else needs to remove the WP:BLP violation, the assertion that she was involved in a "campaign against J. Michael Bailey." The campaign was clearly about the book; none of the sources support saying that she was in a campaign against Bailey (of course, it is easy to see why many interpret it that way, but that's not enough for putting accusatory info into her bio). Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Again Dick there is no BLP violation here. Connway did not accuse a book of having sex with s research subject. She also declared it a victory when Bailey was no longer the departmetn head of psychology at NU. What you are trying to do here is obvious to the casual observer for it's non neutralness. Sure the book was a part of the campaign. But there is no real denying that the man who rote the book, was also attacked and that Connway was a prime mover. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is a key policy that I follow, even when I have my own point of view. I agree with you that Conway did not accuse a book of having sex; she also didn't accuse Bailey. And the statement that she ran a compaign against Bailey needs to be verifiable in reliable sources if it's to stay in the article. If you want to keep it so badly, show us the source instead of questioning my motives. It would be even better to write the article from sources, rather than writing your interpretation and then looking for sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"She did not accuse Bailey?" Then just who did she accuse of having sex with JSM? Why did she accuse that person of having sex with JSM? Furthermore Connway's own website shows that she did in fact orchestrates a campaign against that book and it's Author.

You know what I find really funny. I am sure that if I removed that content some fan of connway's would come here read that this information is not here and assume that mean ol internet faker Hfarmer removed it. :-| --Hfarmer (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted HFarmer

If this is the section that I had agreed with User:James Cantor to not edit, then that at-will agreement is cancelled herewith. Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

HFarmer has added a bunch of sentences on Conway's involvement in the Bailey investigation, most of which is correct, but has been synthesized and spun from primary sources, when there are reliable secondary sources (the Carey NYT article) that give a still biased but somewhat more careful and balanced view of it. In particular, H added a long quotation that I could find not basis for in the cited sources, and left an ambiguous sentence about who filed what complaints.

If there's a consensus that more needs to be said in this section, let's have someone less wierd and biased write it, OK? Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What What I wrote was practically a quote from Conway's own personal website. Which for BLP is a reliable source of information. Speficicaly she wrote it The Bailey Investigation: How it all began with a series of e-mail alerts. I was so afraid that I used so much of her words that she would sue WP and me for violating her copyright? --Hfarmer (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Practically a quote" is not good enough. It needs to be accurate. But relying on a biased synthesis by a biased person when there's a secondary source taht already comments on this stuff is inappropriate in itself. And running to the COI noticeboard to try to have me censored is a cheap shot. When I complained about COI on User:MarionTheLibrarian, it was well justified by his hiding and denying his identity while attacking Conway's biography as you are doing now. There is not just justification for accusing me of COI. Dicklyon (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not a baised synthesis from a biased person. IT's on her own freaking website. For christ sake. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to YOUR synthesis by YOU. Where does it say "set in motion the leaving of many negative reviews on Amazon.com"? And "She then filed complaints" conflates complaints filed by different people. And why do you call Anjelica an "alleged research subject"? What kind of allegation is that, and by whom? Dicklyon (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Without having a strong opinion either way about the inclusion of this level of detail, I have moved all the external links into refs. Wikipedia guidelines do not allow this sort of clickable link for inline refs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have a strong opinion, why don't you help fix it? Dicklyon (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dick, I think you would do much better in cases like this to call our attention to the problem, but not to fix it yourself. Please follow the original agreement, interpreted broadly. In fact, I would suggest you go further, and simply not revert other editors on this topic at all. DGG (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dick, I didn't "fix" it (meaning "remove it") because I don't know what the consensus is. If the consensus is to leave it, then it's already "fixed". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon, you are not a very careful reader. You say that there is no basis in reliable sources to argue that Conway attacked Bailey and not just his book.

This is from the New York Times article:

“The bottom line is that they tried to ruin this guy, and they almost succeeded,” Dr. Dreger said.

From Dreger's piece:

"And of the accusations made, almost none appear to have been legitimate. But all of the noise of the accusations did what I suspect Conway, James, and McCloskey hoped: It distracted attention from the book’s message—that Blanchard’s theory of MTF transsexualism was right—by apparently killing the messenger. Indeed, much as Bailey would prefer not to admit it, in their leadership of the backlash against TMWWBQ, Lynn Conway, Andrea James, and Deirdre McCloskey came remarkably close to effectively destroying J. Michael Bailey’s reputation and life."

For good measure, this is from Dreger's response to the commentaries:

"The historical evidence indicates that it was chiefly these three women who actively worked to lead the campaign against Bailey. The historical evidence indicates it was the essentially groundless charges put forth by Conway, McCloskey, and James that attracted and energized many allies and journalists. And, most importantly, the historical evidence indicates that Conway, McCloskey, and James tried to destroy Bailey’s book and his reputation through these truly extraordinary measures because they didn’t like what he had to say. No one has offered any even-remotely persuasive evidence contrary to all this, nor do I believe they could."

I don't get your point. Are you saying (wrongly) that no reliable sources say what they obviously say, or are you disputing, tiresomely and wrongly again, that Dreger (or even the New York Times when it quotes Dreger) is not a reliable source? The page didn't need fixing. Fix yourself.ProudAGP (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that only Dreger says such a thing; actually, I was saying that even she didn't, based on my review of her paper; things like "their leadership of the backlash against TMWWBQ" that you quote above make it clear that it was about the book. But I forgot that the NYT times had that quote, which didn't turn up when I searched for "campaign"; and I forgot to look at her response to the commentaries. So, if you want to quote Dreger for such an opinion, that would be OK. And yes, you caught me for not being a very careful reader. But what Hfarmer did was to attribute to Conway's pages the opinion of Dreger; does that sound acceptable to you? Dicklyon (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it without reverting this time. That is, I left all the stuff that's sourced to Conway's site, and all the rest that Hfamer wanted in there, but made minor edits to make the material more consistent with the cited sources, and to use better sources when I was able to. If there is anything I didn't get quite right, please do fix it better. Or feel free to remove some of the excess detail sourced to primary sources that now dominates that section that we had been trying to keep short. But no spin, or stuff not supported by the cited sources, please. Dicklyon (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon's and my agreement was not to edit the controversy section of this page. He unilaterally declared an end to that agreement. Despite user:DGG's advice that Dicklyon remain within that agreement (and even to restrict himself further), Dicklyon has continued to edit this page. Dicklyon has been blocked three times for edit warring on this and other topics and has been topic banned from still others. His withdrawal from negotiated agreement indicates that there is little point to negotiation. Dicklyon's COI on this topic is acknowledged, although it is less than that of user:Jokestress. (I am leaving any comparison of his and my own COI to others.)

Now that Dicklyon has withdrawn from his agreement with me, I am open to suggestion about how best to prevent a return to the problems that made that agreement necessary in the first place.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been known to compare this whole mess to the war in lebanon. I would describe a neutral mediator who was thought by both sides to favor the opposing side. Then ended up being kidnapped and behaded. Let me make another mideast comparison. No one here would think that this is less bitter, messy and passionate than the Arab-Israeli conflict. In that conflict Egypt and Israel fought three wars. Then Menacham Begin went to Israel addressed the Kinsesset and made a separate peace with Israel, so has Jordan. Some people in the pro/anti bailey camp are going to have to be as brave as Begin and make that trip to the other side. Try to work in good faith towards an ammicale solution to these problems. (and propably risk being attacked the way Begin was by some fanatic or the other.) This conflict needs a Begin. So who will it be?

If that's a little too suble for you let me make it plain. Perhaps Dick could try editing and being as "pro sexoloogist" as he can. While James Cantor you try to edit from the most anti sexologist position that you can. In other words James you playthe role of Jokestress and Dick you play the role of Proud AGP. Mabey after doing that for a while you'll have a better sense of where the middle, where I am, really is.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Although an analogy to war can be apt, it does not change the WP rules, nor Dicklyon's repeated violation of them in this and other pages. Individuals are ultimately responsible for their war-crimes, but in WP and unlike war, the actors are held accountable during rather than after the conflict. You have every right to disagree with my belief that Dicklyon has crossed all reasonable lines and that all reasonable efforts to resolve the problem have been exhausted. However, your disagreement should be based on WP rules, not an analogy, however apt the analogy's other aspects might be.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes those rules include the rules of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution here on wikipedia. At the heart of those is the process of stepping back and seeing the subject from the other sides point of view. That has everything to do with my analogy. One has to be able to see things from the other sides point of view or one can never be truly neutral.

If we all cannot resolve this mess here amongst ourselves then we have no choice but to refer this and all other related disputes, all in one big ball, all at once to the Arbitraion Comitte I see no Where else to go if we cannot bridge this gap.

James, as long as our agreement was effective in keeping you and your friends from attacking the biography of my friend, it survived. Since that truce broke down through Hfarmer, and there was no UN to step in and moderate, I had to abandon it. Let's do talk about what next. An RfC to try to find some unbiased parties to help? If you think I have violated some rules, I'd like to know more specifically about that. Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Peace proposal

James, if you can convince Hfarmer to cooperate, avoid WP:SYNTH, and rigorously respect WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP, then we can reset to before her contentious and inaccurate BLP-violating edits and resume a truce. What do you think? Alternatively, if you think any of my recent edits have moved the article in a bad direction, as opposed to simply correcting her errors, please let's talk about that, and maybe we can move forward without the former agreement. Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• To my mind, Hfarmer has already been cooperating consistently, including rigorously respecting those and all other policies.
• That Dicklyon wants to decide for himself when he should and should not obey his agreements is precisely the problem. An agreement that is kept only when convenient to only one of the parties is not an agreement at all. I never changed so much as a comma in any place I agreed not to, no matter how strongly I felt.
• I think we are long past where an RfC would be of use. There has yet to be an otherwise uninvolved editor or admin whom Dicklyon did not accuse of bias simply for disagreeing with him.
• The rules Dicklyon has broken are already listed above, and he has simply ignored an admin's advice that he restrict himself. Dicklyon's history of blocks and bans suggests that his behavioral problems are not just with me or Hfarmer, nor just on this page, nor just on this topic.

The problems and warring over the trans-related articles have been going on for a very long time, and the pages themselves remain largely an embarrassment to WP. Despite that Dicklyon calls it a peace offering, there is no reason for me or anyone else to trust that he would not again withdraw from this or any other voluntary agreement when it suits him to do so. WP:COI suggests that editors listen to the good-faith recommendations of uninvolved editors, and (sans user:Jokestress and me) all such editors have noted problems with Dicklyon's edits here and elsewhere. I am of the opinion that the topic ban he is under for another topic be expanded to include this one. Although is not clear to me whether Hfarmer meant it sincerely, I would indeed support her idea to send the whole big ball to ArbCom.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that "the pages themselves remain largely an embarrassment to WP", for most of the pages being edited by the warring sexologist and transwomen camps. Your side has had the upper hand and has only used it to make things worse. I'm sorry we couldn't find any better mutual understanding on which to move forward. I respect all the policies, and most of the guidelines, of wikipedia, and if you can get you and yours to do the same, things wouldn't have to be so bad. Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I read Dreger's paper. What she describes as groundless charges seem to me to be authentic descriptions of ethical violations, which Dreger excuses, one by one, as technicalities. When someone repeatedly acts to violate another, it constitutes an ethics breach, is not of formal code, then of human decency. To me, Dreger's opinion piece combines detailed scholarship with an extraordinary spinning of the truth. I don't support the inclusions of her synthesis or opinion as fact. That said, I think that the Bailey controversy section is regrettably long, and does violate WP:BLP. (overwhelming, for example, the frankly much more interesting and infinitely more impactful development and evangelism of VLSI technology.) Nogladfeline (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a court and we are not here to but Bailey on trial. I really wish that some of these matters had ben brought up in the form of lawsuits and there had been trials... so that we could all have a set of established facts and judiciated findings of fact to work with rather than rumor and inuendo. Let me tell you something, a very educated peron who I met here in Chicago had a well formed opinion of Bailey and his book having never ever read it, or anything detailed and reliable about it. Because this person was surprised to find out that it all happend here in Chicago. No shade on them, but that is a symptom of the problem we face here. Which I had hoped WP could solve. :-< I don't see that much of what Dr. Bailey was accused of even if 100% true would be the "violation of human decency" that you say it is anyway. He was accused of violating the confidence of people he talked to, that he did and deserved a chideing for. Other than that the rest is just... odd. So in your mind a consenting adult male having sex with a transsexual is volating human decency? --Hfarmer (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on people, opinions about Bailey and his innocence or guilt, or the validity of the charges against him, are quite out of scope here. Suggesting that an accusation of having sex with a research subject is in any way related to saying that "having sex with a transsexual is violating human decency" is a nasty red herring. Let's get back to focusing on wikipedia policies, which is about verifiability in reliable sources, not reporting opinions as fact, not overloading bios with irrelevant junk, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

One Last Thing

The added material certainly is useful in increasing accuracy concerning Conway's notability during the past few years. However, there is one persisting deficiency, and that is that it doesn't say that Dreger found that Conway made false accusations about Bailey, who was "essentially blameless." This is obviously relevant and important to include both for accuracy and fairness. This page need not and should not take a position over whether Conway is right or Dreger is right, but it should definitely be explicit that Dreger said that Conway's campaign took liberties with the truth. For reliable sources and quotations:

From the New York Times article:

"But in her just-completed account, due to be published next year in The Archives of Sexual Behavior, the field’s premier journal, she concluded that the accusations against the psychologist were essentially groundless."

“'What happened to Bailey is important, because the harassment was so extraordinarily bad and because it could happen to any researcher in the field,' said Alice Dreger, an ethics scholar and patients’ rights advocate at Northwestern who, after conducting a lengthy investigation of Dr. Bailey’s actions, has concluded that he is essentially blameless."

“'The bottom line is that they tried to ruin this guy, and they almost succeeded,' Dr. Dreger said."

From Dreger's Archives of Sexual Behavior peer-reviewed article:

"And of the accusations made, almost none appear to have been legitimate. But all of the noise of the accusations did what I suspect Conway, James, and McCloskey hoped: It distracted attention from the book’s message—that Blanchard’s theory of MTF transsexualism was right—by apparently killing the messenger. Indeed, much as Bailey would prefer not to admit it, in their leadership of the backlash against TMWWBQ, Lynn Conway, Andrea James, and Deirdre McCloskey came remarkably close to effectively destroying J. Michael Bailey’s reputation and life."

From Dreger's Archives of Sexual Behavior response to the commentaries:

"When people ask me why I focused so much on the actions of Conway, McCloskey, and James, I think the answer is obvious. The historical evidence indicates that it was chiefly these three women who actively worked to lead the campaign against Bailey. The historical evidence indicates it was the essentially groundless charges put forth by Conway, McCloskey, and James that attracted and energized many allies and journalists."

"What happened in the Bailey book controversy is a scandal—a scandal for trans rights, for sex research, for the press, and for free discourse. Whether the right of free speech, in a legalistic sense, extends to falsehoods aimed at eliminating an ideological opponent, I do not know. But I know that morally it does not."

"Nevertheless, I think what some of these critics simply don’t get—or perhaps don’t wish to admit—is that, no matter how reprehensible Bailey’s book was believed to be, it would not justify the production, broadcasting, and filing of essentially false charges against Bailey by Lynn Conway, Deirdre McCloskey, and Andrea James to multiple authorities."

I could go on. But don't need to.ProudAGP (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I will repeat, Dreger hasn't 'found' Conway guilty of making false accusations, she *claims* that Conway made 'essentially groundless' accusations. Dreger's word is not fact, and I oppose any such representation thereof. Mention *of* a controversy is one thing, but elevating one outsider's biased appraisal of said conflict as truth on a principal's biography is right off. Nogladfeline (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The real question here is going to be how to interpret Dreger's opinions with respect to WP:BLP where it says "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one." Now, since Dreger's opinions are just her own words, her paper can hardly be considered a secondary source; perhaps the NYT can, but even there all they do is quote her, not endorse or analyze her comments. Overwhelming the article with this junk is a problem, too, as it's not the basis of Conway's notability. And the tiny minority of people who seem to think that she acted improperly (namely, one NYT editor maybe and a handful of Bailey's sexologist buddies) seem small compared to the community of trans women to whom she appears to be some kind of a hero. But these issues are never going to be resolved sensibly as long as the people editing the article are the trans women and the sexologists and their close allies. I don't know who Nogladfeline is, but if she is less conflicted than the rest of us, maybe we should listen to her. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revision of controversy paragraph

For reasons I have already given, which have not been convincingly refuted, this paragraph needs more detail about the specific assertions that Dreger made in her article and that were covered by the New York Times. Below is the slight revision of the current paragraph I propose:

She has been a prominent critic of the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory of male-to-female transsexualism, objecting to the hypothesis that all transsexual women are motivated either by feminine homosexuality or autogynephilia. She was also a key person in the controversial campaign against J. Michael Bailey's controversial book The Man Who Would Be Queen. Northwestern University professor Alice Dreger published a peer-reviewed article about the controversy that concluded that the campaign against Bailey was an attempt to "ruin" Bailey by making various false accusations against him. Conway organized the investigation after receiving a message alerting her to the publication of Bailey's book. Conway alerted her friend Andrea James, and they “began digging into what had happened”. Then she posted information about the book on a page that became the "Bailey Investigation website." Conway spread the word further and many negative reviews of the book were left by transwomen on Amazon.com. She wrote to GLAAD, and "Press for Change" in the UK, which "spread the alert worldwide." Bailey's research subject Anjelica Kieltyka contacted Conway and told her about "how Mr. Bailey exploited her and the young trans women she was mentoring in Chicago..." Conway and others then filed a complaint with Northwestern University accusing Bailey of practicing clinical psychology without a license, and witnessed a complaint by a transwoman accusing Bailey of having sex with a research subject. Benedict Carey wrote an article in which he observed that "the controversy had a life of its own on the Internet." ProudAGP (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph already puts too much weight on this incident in Conway's life. I know it's a big-as-life issue for transsexuals, autogynephiles, and sexologists, but it's only a minor event in Conway's life. Let's keep the detail at The Man Who Would Be Queen; since we link there, and there's no need to extend the controversial editing into Conway's biography, I suggest you leave it; even better, condense it.

It's also not clear exactly what you're proposing changing; looks like an introduction of Dreger's "history", sourced to New York Times in a not quite accurate way. Even characterizing it here as "peer reviewed" is likely to re-open the whole question of who says so, and why, and how be got blasted for that, and who are these historian peers that work for the sexologists. I don't think we want to go there. Dicklyon (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The more logcal response would be for Dicklyon to add information on the other parts of Conway's life, as he's promised before but hasn't actually done much of.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the history, you'll see that it has come a long way since my first edit of May 2008. Further back, you can how things started to get messy when User:WhatamIdoing started to spin the controversial stuff in this edit. I don't mean to claim credit for all the added good stuff since then, but I've done a fair part of it, thanks for you concern. Oh, and then you started in, with your Al Shaprton attack; very cute; who did we decide that quote was from originally? Dicklyon (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon asks that the paragraph about Conway's involvement be condensed. My revised, suggested, paragraph (below) does just that. (I suspect Dicklyon still doesn't want to "go there" because it notes that Dreger said that Conway made false accusations. But that's important for accuracy.):

Conway has been a prominent critic of the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory of male-to-female transsexualism, objecting to the hypothesis that all transsexual women are motivated either by feminine homosexuality or autogynephilia. She was also a key person in the controversial campaign against J. Michael Bailey's controversial book The Man Who Would Be Queen. Northwestern University professor Alice Dreger published an article about the controversy that concluded that the campaign against Bailey was an attempt to "ruin" Bailey by making various false accusations against him, including that he conducted research without required supervision, that he had sex with a research subject, and that he practiced clinical psychology without a license. ProudAGP (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My latest version got rid of the obsolete link that you have above at "controversial campaign". And balanced Dreger with a person who sees it differently; you can't have her opinion alone. Dicklyon (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we please leave all of this alone until after the mediation? Please.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. What Hfarmer said. Throwing the same DVD back in the player is not going to get you a new ending to the movie.— James Cantor (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

References