Talk:Stephen B. Levine

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Society / Psychiatry Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Levine (psychiatrist) → Stephen B. Levine — Using his middle initial better diambiguates him from another author/healer with the same name — Jokestress (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

At this point, I am abstaining from !voting. However, shouldn't the other S. Levine article be dabbed as (poet) not (author), since they are both authors? DigitalC (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are both authors and both healers (in different senses), but I believe one who does poetry is better known for his therapeutic work than his poetry. That's what made this a little complicated. What would be ideal is finding out his middle initial. Jokestress (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this Stephen Levine was known by Stephen B. Levine, I don't believe this dab is appropriate. JPG-GR (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's how he is credited on all his books and articles (i.e. this.) Jokestress (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Silent Reversion and Talk Page Reversion?

@Dronebogus About your improper removal of my contribution to the article and question to you, the person who reverted my edit, from the talk page

1. "I don’t know what this is about but this is the wrong forum" - WP:Talk_page_guidelines disagrees with you and places the obligation on you when your reversion is called into question: "Discuss edits: The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone questions one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale.

2. Per the above, I will be undoing your reversion with the rationale that 1. I have already explained in the prior comment on this talk page, and 2. you have failed to meet a simple request for justification after I made an edit to bring the wording of the article closer to the provided sources and further away from WP:Libel, which is not something I would quite invoke here, but which I believe merits mention. If you seek to revert again, I would encourage you to seek a single other user's opinion or perhaps do your due diligence of responding to my question of your edit which you purged from the talk page. 49.186.63.35 (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were mostly complaining about me and making off-topic remarks. Ny talk page would have been more appropriate. As for the actual, now-rephrased question “expert opinion” is a loaded term in general speech, basically meaning “I/you/they/he/she/it is authoritative beyond reasonable doubt”, which as the article implies Levine had been subject to. It’s puffery, basically. We know what his field of expertise is from the first sentence. Dronebogus (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plus are you really suggesting someone who compares transgender medical care to Nazi medical experiments and has advocated for overturning a ban on the widely condemned and completely ineffective practice of conversion therapy should uncritically be labeled an “expert” on transgender studies, just because he’s in the field? Dronebogus (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Poverty Law Center - sentence should be removed.

The SPLC article is not written from a neutral point of view (the title of the article is references "pseudoscience"). Levine is barely mentioned in the article except to say that ADF relies on him as an expert witness. Despite the articles claims, the Courts sided with Levine.

The article never refers to him as an "old guard" which smacks of ageism. It also never says that Levine advocates for "conversion therapy."

There are two substantial reasons to take this down. First, the quote does not accurately represent the article, Stephen Levine or his views and is clearly inappropriate for a biography of a living person. Secondly, the article is not written from a neutral point of view. The SPLC is a biased source and when used for a biography of living person, it needs to conform to the policy. The article doesn't.

"Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy." PerseusMeredith (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you note, this is a single sentence, which hardly seems undue weight for an article of this length. I reviewed the cited chapter and disagree that he is barely mentioned. There's substantial detail about his work and role in the network of practitioners.

I hadn't considered the phrase "old guard" as ageist as I've seen it so regularly used as a self-claimed title, but I take your point. In this case it would be reasonable to substitute "network," which I'll change now.

As for the reasons you give for removing entirely:

The sentence summarizes statements in the chapter re: the role of Levine and other practitioners in the litigation of access to gender affirmative care. It is not necessary to summarize the entire article. If there are specific instances you believe the sentence misrepresents claims, please identify them here for the discussion.
SPLC and their activities are well established, and readers unaware of SLPC's orientation can follow the wikilink. This is in line with Wikipedia policy. It may help to (see full report details here) to evaluate the qualifications and scholarship. Again, if you have specific reasons to criticize this source please identify them for the discussion.

Lastchapter (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

My position is that the article that is the source for the sentence is not from a Neutral Point of View. SPLC starts with a position that practitioners that disagree with its view practice "pseudoscience." There are no citations that support SPLC's position and this is a topic of immense public debate. I believe the sentence is poorly sourced since the article is biased and not written from a neutral point of view.

The sentence also says that Levine supports conversion therapy. He doesn't. If you look at the youtube citation at 4:40, Levine specifically says that it is NOT conversion therapy. He believes that there are alternative approaches to affirmative care.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OflbCjj_hVc PerseusMeredith (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The report's use of pseudoscience is defined extensively in the introduction, including citations. Looking at the report as a whole, it is in fact well sourced and backed by scholarly credentials. It is also in line with the SPLC's mission, which is easily identifiable via the wikilink to their article, in line with WP:ACCORDINGTO in-text attribution practices.

The report does recognize that Levine has said that Gender exploratory therapy is not conversion therapy, which I believe is where you got that youtube link. I can amend the article with that recognition. Lastchapter (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing to clarify Levine's position that Gender exploratory therapy is not conversion therapy.

I still don't think this is appropriate for a biography of a living person. The greatest care and attention should be given to neutrality for a BLP article. The SPLC article is not neutral. They have their position and they've written an article that advocates for that position. But the article is slanted and there isn't a serious review of the studies they've cited. These studies have been called into question by the Cass Review and others. Maybe the SPLC is right and maybe it's wrong but it doesn't conform with the neutrality standards required for BLP. PerseusMeredith (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference the specific policy or guideline you are referring to as well as the specific evidence for bias (and which bias, exactly) Lastchapter (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]