Talk:Brain Sex

Record of user deleting page with deceptive edit summary

The article read like a commercial. I edited (and removed) most of it as a result. It even cites itself for Christ's sakes...Tell me that's not allowed by Wikipedia's rules... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.75.32 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

216.239.75.32, I've removed the vandalism you made. Don't ever do something like that ever again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.3.28.120 (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Genie (feral child)

Genie's real name is xxxx. This has been published in dozens of press reports. Her surname is known as well, and can be recovered from the page history. One user has argued, at the main entry regarding Genie, that her name should not be used at Wiki. Neither consensus among editors nor a decision on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation have been provided regarding this. The user who is uncomfortable with the name being used at Wiki has removed it from this article, which I believe the editor has every right to do. However, the discussion cited by that editor does not constitute a consensus supporting the editor's opinion.

Genie herself has not contacted Wiki and there is no law that restricts Wiki from publishing her name. She is not being reported to be criminal in any way. What is documented at Wiki is backed by reliable sources. Speaking only for myself, were I to use her real name (if she still goes by this) to attempt to locate her, it would be in order to provide financial support were that to prove helpful or possible. The important points here are that Wiki is constrained by publishing only what has been previously published, and that there is no clear case that using her birth certificate name would entail any likely risk to her. It could be just as plausibly argued, for example, that withholding her name may deprive her of support she may otherwise obtain.

I'm documenting my personal decision not to revert the current version of the article, which now only has her psuedonym. I am choosing not to revert because I don't think it matters to this article whether she is named or not. I think using her real name is preferable, but it is trivial to the point of indifference so far as reporting on Brain Sex goes.

However, I think it is a much more serious matter that an editor should be changing the text of this article, for the sake of a personal opinion, without the support of editorial consensus, the Wiki foundation or a clear statement of applicable legislation. So I will note the edit made at the talk page where this matter has been discussed. That allows other editors, with other views to consider what should be the case at this article.

It is not so much the process of consensus that I, personally, wish to protect, but rather my concerns are related to a common process of censorship in western society which runs, "if anyone could possibly be upset by this we shouldn't say it." This is outstandingly anti-social and small-minded, however noble the motives. The principle is also typically inconsistantly applied by its proponents. Ultimately, most cases boil down to, "if I don't like it, others won't like it, therefore we can silence it." The fact that being silenced upsets those who are being silenced is dismissed by a range of ad hoc arguments.

It is tremendously important that Wiki has a NPOV policy. In other words, ideas, however detestable to some, can be reported, so long as they are backed by reliable sources, are not advocated, and do not constitute undue wieght to the point of view. It is part of being a functional member of society that one learns to contemplate distasteful points of view, and sometimes learns from them. Occasionally they are right.

It will be obvious to anyone interested in the subject matter of this article how important the matters I mention are. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, and to explain, following a post to the BLP noticeboard a clear editorial consensus was developed at Genie (feral child) that including the real name was inappropriate. Other non-involved editors agreed at the the deletion review of the redirects [1]. I don't think given the near unanimity of the opinions that it was inappropriate to delete the name here too without the need for formal discussion on this page.Slp1 (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I also note that the book Brain Sex itself uses the pseudonym Genie rather her real name.Slp1 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lack of third party sources

Apart from three uncited & general quotes from 'Reviews', this article has no source other than the book itself. This really isn't acceptable for a wikipedia article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is incomplete, agreed.

Feel free to add reaction, criticism, replies and other commentary.

There is actually a good deal of it out there.

Wikipedia is always a "work in progress".

You do seem to be overlooking that this is not an article about the topic of brain sex, it is an article about a book called Brain Sex.

There is also a difference between description of what a book says, and evaluation of whatever it says.

Description is neutral, evaluation is not.

An encyclopedia must describe, whether it evaluates or not is icing on the cake. But if evaluation is to be done encyclopedically, it must be by describing the text of reviewers.

Description of text is unavoidable in encyclopedic work, in fact it is essential. The important thing is avoiding evaluation.

You want evaluation in this article. I agree, that's a good idea. Find a review, and describe what that review says. I won't ask you to find a review of a review to confirm the first review actually says what you say it says. I'll just look at the review you cite and verify it does say what you say. ;)

At Wiki, we call these principles Neutral Point of View and Verifiability.

If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

1. No, I will NOT 'agree' that the article is merely "incomplete" -- it is a WP:IINFO-violative précis. The point of an encyclopaedic article on a book (like on any other topic) is to explain it (not simply to summarise it).
2. I am not "overlooking" anything of the sort.
3. Your claims that "the important thing is avoiding evaluation" and about what "an encyclopedia must" do contradicts WP:PSTS -- which clearly states that an article can and should rely on WP:SECONDARY sources for "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims".
4. I have found several reviews (see the {{find}} I inserted above), but all behind paywalls. Oddly enough, unlike the sychophantic (but uncited) review quotes in the article, they were a mix of positive & negative -- making me suspect that the quotes were cherry-picked.
5. I will further note that, whilst "Wikipedia is always a 'work in progress'", this article has remianed largely unchanged for the last 9 months.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Reiterating, we have 54 citations to the topic-book itself, and one to another source for a quote from the topic book. No other references. WP:PSTS states "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." WP:GNG also requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Further, WP:IINFO prohibits articles that are simply WP:PLOT (to which an article that is almost all a 'Summary' is a close analogue). This article needs a serious rewrite. I could probably throw {{cleanup}} & {{allplot}} at it without being genuinely guilty of "tag bombing" (as its uncited quotes leaves it open to {{refimprove}}, its lack of third party sources, and thus any critical viewpoints, leaves it open to {{pov}}, etc, etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And, no, I am not in a position to do this cleanup myself -- I have neither access to the book (to write a more succinct précis), nor to the reviews of it (which are behind paywalls). Therefore I did the only thing I could do, I tagged it, with a brief explanatory note on talk, watch-listed it & moved on. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)