Talk:J. Michael Bailey

message: I am not sure whether this belongs in the article but Bailey has just had a paper about "ROGD" retracted for failing to get adequate consent from the participants. He is spitting nails about it on Twitter.
* https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02635-1
DanielRigal (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is currently some discussion happening on the ROGD article talk page about this article retraction. Hist9600 (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retraction 

message: Just a comment here for  and  as you both made comments here suggesting the retraction was not notable (not doing this to be annoying, rather to help with editing going forward). Per Mathglot, this is a misunderstanding of notability. WP:Notability applies to the topic of an article, but not to the article's content. The content of an article has to be verifiable, but it does not have to be notable. Hope this clears this up and helps with any editing going forward. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:N refers to notability in that specific context, but notability is still relevant with regard to the article content in the sense covered by WP:DUE, WP:PROPORTION, etc. The main issue with the ROGD content initially was that early coverage was done mostly by unreliable, poor quality sources that were inappropriate for a BLP. Hist9600 (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, sorry, not seeing the words notable or notability at all in WP:DUE or WP:PROPORTION? Think it's best to use clear terminology here to avoid confusion. But no worries. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on notability 

message: Zenomonoz, we may need to discuss this edit, where you removed the sentence:  This statement is well sourced, as discussed above.  See in particular where this source states:  In your edit summary, you said  If it were irrelevant, why would both of the cited sources mention it? Further, nothing here said anything about the study being "offensive". The critique was methodological. And there are certainly enough transgender people for a representative study to be conducted. This one was critiqued for failing to be representative (and for disregarding countervailing evidence). Again, a methodological critique. Happy to discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, Mike Bailey would like people to believe the paper was retracted because of activist disagreement and offence with his paper and it's methodology. The section is titled 'retraction', hence I feel it is best to simply state it was retracted because of the consent issues. If you would like to reinclude the 'critiques' of the papers methodology, then you should probably rename the subsection title 'Rapid onset gender dysphoria' because it's now branching out beyond retraction. No paper is retracted because of the representativeness of the sample, that would usually be criticised in commentaries. The paper was retracted for consent issues and hence it's best to keep it brief. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I still don't follow your argument. Critiquing a paper's methodology has nothing to do with taking offense. Calling one's critics "activists" is just name-calling. You yourself have argued above that Bailey's intentions should be immaterial, and I agree. The paper needs to be described is accordance with the way reliable secondary sources have done, with the various aspects of that coverage given due weight. Removing the sentence about methodological critique violates that core principle. I therefore ask you to self-revert. Generalrelative (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that if reliable secondary sources have described it a certain way, then that is fair to include. If the content is about the paper that was retracted, then it seems not unreasonable to include that in the section as well. Hist9600 (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: By that standard, it would be appropriate to then include what the paper found and covered. See the issue? My point was to keep it brief because you all fought me on notability to begin with, and the BLP noticeboard agreed that a short couple of sentences was appropriate. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, a lot of these things come down to core principles like due weight, notability, the presence of reliable secondary sources, and to some degree consensus. In my view, adding a sentence that provides this context does not really pose a problem. Hist9600 (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

text: I think it's fair to mention the criticism. I still don't think this one paper needs to be in a dedicated subsection, but if it does, we could maybe call it "Retracted paper" to address Zenomonoz's concern about it being about more than just the retraction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing edit 

message: There are a number of issues with these types of sources, and I'm concerned about BLP's becoming collections of what are effectively primary sources, or sources that are not sufficiently independent from the article subject. We have seen before that BLP's for psychologists, psychiatrists, sexologists, etc., may become littered with primary medical sources, and it takes a lot of work to clean this up after the fact. I'm not against the use of sources like this, but I think they should be accompanied by an independent secondary reliable source that establishes the relevance to the Wikipedia article subject.
While a review study may be a secondary source with regard to the study of a certain subject (e.g. sexual orientation), is it a primary or secondary source with regard to the person's career? The review study is not about Bailey himself. It was about sexual orientation, and Bailey was one of the authors. If the subject of this Wikipedia article was sexual orientation, then I think this may be an independent secondary reliable source on the subject of sexual orientation. But since the source is primarily about sexual orientation, and the subject of this Wikipedia article is one of the authors of the review study, I don't see how this could be considered a secondary reliable source on the matter of Bailey's career.
I think it would make more sense to base the section on Bailey's career on what independent secondary and tertiary reliable sources say about the work that he has done that is significant, and this is a better way to determine what is WP:DUE. For example, a news article that mentions noteworthy studies done by Bailey, and ties them to Bailey and his career, might be an independent secondary reliable source about Bailey's career. Per WP:PST, whether a source is WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY is specific to exactly how the source is being used. Hist9600 (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on this in the section below. Continue conversation there for chronological order so other users can chime in. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bailey, et al (2016)