Talk:Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality

NPOV?

The reviews of the book on this article suggests it only took praise, but a quick search within one of the sources showed that it is also been critized. A matter the original writer of the article forgot or looked over it. I fixed one of them , but at this moment the article looks like it lacks NPOV. So, I suggest we look better into the subject. Mathijsloo (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The one from the Guardian has been redone already, and the Publishers' Weekly one has been expanded. I don't know of any others. Please share specific suggestions. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Peacock and POV banners

On 10 August 2021, User:OwenBlacker added a {Peacock} template without specifying any such objectionable terms in his edit summary. Wikipedia's MOS:PEACOCK guideline provides a helpful list, but not one of these 31 "words to watch" appears in Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality:

legendary, best, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, popular, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, revolutionary, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique, pioneering, phenomenal ...

I recognize that the list is meant to be suggestive not exhaustive. Nevertheless, I don't see similar language in our article justifying the page-top banner. I shall therefore take the liberty of removing the template awaiting consensus as to its inclusion. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't wait for consensus on Clean-up templates and the user whose work is being tagged doesn't get to remove templates about unresolved issues, per WP:WNTRMT

The list you quote is not exhaustive and the guideline is about POV-loaded language. This article is in no way a balanced view of the book, which had been the subject of plenty of controversy.

I'm slammed in a big work project for the next day or so, but I'll come back later to discuss further — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OwenBlacker, you need to stop edit warring these tags in here [1][2] and at Helen Joyce. [3][4] Your opinion that it is "obvious" is just your opinion and is irrelevant without reliable sources. This is WP:Drive-by tagging: Adding tags for non-obvious or perceived problems—without identifying the problem well enough for it to be easily fixed...When it comes to confusing or subjective tags, such as [npov], it is important to explain yourself on the article's talk page or in an edit summary. I do not see any peacock terms; tag them specifically inline if they exist or point them out here. Additionally, Template:POV states, The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor....This template should not be used as a badge of shame....The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. That is very, very clear. These tags aren't for editors to shame indefinitely articles where they personally disagree with what the sources say, or feel vaguely that something is missing but can't demonstrate it. These tags are groundless and will be removed. If they are reinstated again without meaningful proposals, that is disruptive editing. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

To address the latest comment: WP:WNTRMT doesn't say that, and presupposes that there is a legitimate issue. Per WP:ONUS and WP:CON - actual policies - you need a consensus for the tags for them to stay. Meanwhile, WP:WTRMT says tags may be removed when When the issue has been adequately addressed...If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error....if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page...If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. For example: [the POV tag] strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. You need to give specific, actionable ideas based on reliable sources. Your unsourced opinion that the article "is in no way a balanced view of the book" referring to a vague "plenty of controversy" is not relevant without sources, per Template:POV quoted above. WNTRMT is not a WP:FILIBUSTER technique to say that tags must stay until you personally are satisified; there must be proof of actual problems per policy. I'm more than willing to work on actual issues and add missing RS, but I have to have something of substance to work with. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Original research

The entirety of the "Summary" section is comprised of original research. There are no sources but the book itself, so the editor who wrote the section basically included his or her understanding of the ideas of the original work. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs secondary sources that can attest to possible interpretations of published works. As it stands right now, the section is original research. Best regards--Freddy eduardo (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It is a proper use of the WP:PRIMARY source of the book itself. I'm not sure what "interpretation" is allegedly going on. It simply describes it. It is very common for articles on books, movies, and so on to provide just such a synopsis. This seems to be an extraordinary demand. The tag should be removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

As you can see in Wikipedia:No original research, the rule is extremely clear in regards to this and I quote: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." (the emphasis is from the rule, not mine). And also: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation".--Freddy eduardo (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Freddy eduardo: Please help me understand. You don't have to identify all the violations, of course. But could you provide one or two examples of how the summary analyzes, evaluates, interprets, or synthesizes material from the book? Thank you. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The entire section is a synthesis of the work and an interpretation of the ideas in it.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Freddy eduardo: Your vague reply is unhelpful. Is it really too much trouble for you to provide one or two specific examples? My request is not unreasonable. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it contains no synthesis or interpretation I can see, just description. Per WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. This is quite in line with that and with many other book articles. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That said, the list of organizations added here may be undue, though perhaps an integration of a small part with the rest of it can be done since WPUK has an article (the other is a redirect) and it's good to link to relevant articles. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Per our policy on summaries, I wouldn't call it original research. The list of organizations probably shouldn't be included though. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Summary sections are common and very useful in articles about fiction and non-fiction books (See for example The Lord of the Rings, The Second Sex or The Communist Manifesto, all of which rely mainly on primary sources). Actually, I'd like to congratulate Crossroads for writing this one. - Daveout(talk) 01:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Seconded! And thanks for saying so @Daveout AndyGordon (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

NPOV issues

It seems (from the article history, from the discussion here, and also at Talk:Helen Joyce that a number of editors feel this article is indeed written from a non-neutral point of view. I am accordingly reinstating the NPOV template, though I think that we could do with a closer look at the sources to work the issue through. Thanks, The Land (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The concerns of Mathijsloo have been addressed already, and only one editor at this article has been insisting on tags. I haven't gotten anything specific from that one yet, but if I do I am happy to add them or let someone else do so. The section in question at Helen Joyce differs significantly, and I see no reason to apply here what people think of that one, which is its own issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mathijsloo:; @OwenBlacker:; @Newimpartial: - would be curious to hear if you could expand on your concerns in more detail, or indicate if they've been addressed already. Thanks, The Land (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

And I'll add, please state specifically how they could be addressed based on sources on this topic per the instructions at Template:POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

New review

There is now an additional academic review of Trans, which someone more patient than I could work into this article: [5] Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Thanks for flagging that! After scratching my head a bit about the quality of that as a source, I've added it in the Reviews section. (Looking at the content of Critical Legal Thinking, the authors they work with - who are all law academics - and the credentials of the author of the review, who is a Professor of Law at Warwick University, I'm satisfied it more than meets the criteria for inclusion). The Land (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)