Talk:Simon LeVay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Simon LeVay article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Housekeeping

The article seems to repeat itself in the 'Sexuality Research' and 'Controversy' sections. A better flow would be to either combine the two, or make a passing statement on the controversy in the 'Sexuality Research' section and link to the 'Controversy' section there. I recommend someone who is better at fluidity do it, but I'll give it a crack tomorrow if necessary.Rec Specz (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal per WP:BLP

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Docg 00:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The Pinel reference you removed sources the statements you removed along with it. I have added additional sources and have more eugenics-related info and quotations to add at a future date. Jokestress 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The cited research did not refute LeVay, but discovered only the volume varied, not the number of neurons. This is a far cry from refuting LeVay. The research did find the same difference in volume of the INAH3.


"Countering LeVay's claims suggesting homosexuality is a genetic predisposition (e.g. a "gay gene"), Brannon points out that "gender identity is a complex concept relating to feelings [...] that are not limited to or congruent with sexual behaviour.""

The statements above make no sense. Gender Identity is one's sense of being male or female. It is not related to Sexual Orientation, which is what LeVay was studying and commenting on. Can someone please clarify this or delete the information?

[edit] Misrepresentation

The article quotes The New York Times saying that LeVay cheerfully looks forward to the day when it will be possible for women to abort fetuses likely to become gay. Since LeVay has denied that this is an accurate description of his views, surely the quote should be removed unless there is additional evidence showing that this is what he in fact thinks? Skoojal (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have kept the quote in the article, but pointed out that what it asserts is false. Implying that the quote is correct is potentially libellous, as warned about at the top of this page. Skoojal (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General Overview

This article is unclear and confused. Glossing over the fact that the summary of LeVay's work is simplistic and unhelpful, the article seems to be be a diatribe raher than an encylopaedia entry. Only refutations of LeVay's work have been quoted, the syntax is in some places non-existant and the use of citation is extremely selective. (Many are out of date)The fact that LeVay has had to resort to providing a link to another website to respond to this page seems ridiculous. Presumably these flaws are the result of multiple overwritings and contributors working at cross-purposes. However, it would be advisable if someone with scientifc knowledge pertinent to this issue was to re-write this article.

Well, if you can see how selective the citations are, you must know something about this issue, so why not re-write the article yourself?Skoojal (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repetitions

As a result of my recent editing, this article has become rather long. It also contains some repetitions. For example, it now contains two different admissions by LeVay of the same thing - that it's difficult to tell the importance of INAH3 size because it is not known whether the differences in size of that part of the brain were there from birth or not. I don't see this as necessarily being a problem; if LeVay admits this more than once, then the article should be able to mention these multiple admissions. However, if someone wants to shorten the article slightly so that there's only one admission by LeVay of this, I don't object to that. Skoojal (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now done this myself. Skoojal (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

This whole paragraph is original research:

Some of LeVay's critics have agendas. A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D, is a conservative Mormon who speaks at LDS events about the success of conversion therapies which attempt to cure homosexuality through religious counseling.[1] Andrea James is a transsexual activist who has helped to edit this article. LeVay has responded to the criticisms James inserted into an older version of this article, and accused her of pursuing a personal vendetta against him because he made positive comments about the work of J. Michael Bailey [1].

Let's discuss how to handle this. Jokestress (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why you perceive that paragraph as being original research? Дҭї 09:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Some of the critics criticised as having agendas are being cited as sources for the article, and not as quotes from critics. Дҭї 09:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Jokestress, if it's OK for you to point out in the article that A. Dean Byrd has an agenda, it should also be OK for me to point out that you have an agenda. Skoojal (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You're the one who added that. It's part of all your POV pushing you have done here. Jokestress (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Coming from you, Jokestress, the accusation of POV pushing is laughable (the edit to which you refer was minor, mostly concerned with style). If you're thinking of dropping any further hints about my behavior in regard to other articles, don't. This is the Simon LeVay talk page. Stick to the subject. Skoojal (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have a small introduction to all of LeVay's prominent critics before listing their criticisms, and we should cite them as critics, not as reliable sources. Дҭї 09:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The article was fine the way it was. Jokestress should not try to conceal the fact that LeVay has responded to her criticisms of his work and made clear his objections to her as a person. It's useless at this stage, and does a disservice to readers of the article. Skoojal (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
First off, one could just as easily say some of LeVay's proponents have agendas. That's in there to dismiss critical commentary. Unless we have someone saying that in a quotation, it's WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. The stuff about me is WP:SELF. Jokestress (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If you point out that someone has an agenda, others can point out that you have an agenda. This is crucial information for the reader. I am simply doing unto you as you have done unto others. Skoojal (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Once again, YOU added this: "Some of LeVay's critics have religious or other agendas." See the diff I already cited.
As far as I am aware, that original wording was your work. It certainly wasn't mine. I simply rephrased it slightly.Skoojal (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You're the one who added that. If you can't even concede that obvious fact, then we have a problem. Jokestress (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
What are you complaining about exactly? The fact that I changed a capital R to a lower case R? Skoojal (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I can see what you are doing. You are pointing to that particular edit to try to make it look as though I was responsible for that wording. I was not, and a more thorough look at the revision history of this article would show that I was not. If it looks in that edit as though I was, that's because I shifted that comment there from another part of the article. Maybe you forgot what really happened? Skoojal (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
For the fourth time, YOU added this exact phrase which was not there before: "Some of LeVay's critics have religious or other agendas." See the diff I already cited. You added the OR about agendas, not me. If it appeared earlier than that, please show me the diff. Is that clear? Can you agree with that? Jokestress (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[2] is a version of this article edited by you, before I started work on it. It contains the mention of critic's agendas, and shows that I was not responsible for that wording. Skoojal (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
But you added it back in after it was removed (it was originally put in by an IP editor), and I never added it, right? Jokestress (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have had a careful look, and you are correct that you did not add that passage. I apologize for jumping to an unjustified conclusion. However, although you did not add it, you didn't remove it either, and ultimately that makes you as responsible for it as if it had been your own work. Skoojal (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The passage in question was added by Hopping on May 28, 2007. Skoojal (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact that LeVay publicly complained about what you did to the article about him is a good enough reason to mention in the article that you did it. WP:SELF is a guideline that permits for exceptions. It is not good enough to simply mention it without offering an argument to show how it supports your case. I therefore will be restoring the content you deleted from the article. Skoojal (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If you are not going to work toward consensus, perhaps we should get some other people involved. Jokestress (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps we should, especially since you don't seem to be working toward consensus either. Skoojal (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Porter quotation

I'd like to discuss this edit:

Historian Roy Porter falsely claimed that LeVay, "...cheerfully looks forward to the day when the 'new eugenics' born of the human genome project will enable women to abort fetuses likely to be carrying any traits they don't much care for, including homosexuality." [17]

We need a source for the assertion he has "falsely" claimed this. Wikipedia does verifiability, not truth. Porter made this claim. That is not false. If LeVay has taken issue with the statement, we should note that with a proper source after the Porter quotation, something like "LeVay takes issue with this assertion." [citation needed]. Jokestress (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The claim was utterly false. Anyone who actually read LeVay's book, the review, and LeVay's response, would know this. If you want a source for the falseness of the claim, then refer to Queer Science itself. Although I have not removed the mention of Porter's false claim from the article, I regard it as questionable whether it should be included. Skoojal (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If someone says something that is obviously false, an article should be able to point that out that it is false. If someone falsely claimed that a famous writer was secretly an anti-semitic Nazi with terrorist connections, for instance, then it would not be OK for a wikipedia article to quote such a comment and follow it with [citation needed]. Skoojal (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, then show the page number where LeVay takes issue with Porter, who is merely stating his opinion. Your terrorist example is obviously libel; Porter's statement is fair comment from a review that appeared in the New York Times. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Porter made it, that can be verified, and if LeVay has taken issue with it, we should include that response as well. Jokestress (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Roy Porter is dead. You cannot libel the deceased. Skoojal (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand my point. So to make it more clear, simply show the source where LeVay takes issue with Porter. Jokestress (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's in an article on LeVay's website that you should be very familiar with, since it attacks you. Skoojal (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So we agree that the Porter stays in with a citation from LeVay's website where he takes issue with the assertion, right? Jokestress (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The Porter quote is borderline in my view. I am not going to remove it myself, but it is questionable whether it should be there in any form. If it stays in, the article should state that it is false. Otherwise it would likely be libellous. Skoojal (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Having reconsidered the matter, I've decided that the Porter quote is useful and should stay in the article - but only as an example of a false claim. Skoojal (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)