Talk:Sexual Preference (book)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sexual Preference (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 09:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, I'll give this one a read through and provide some comments if there are no objections? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned about the use of images here. I'm not sure that we can legitimately use non-free images of book covers other than the cover of Sexual Preference itself. Certainly, this would be an issue that would crop up at FAC, but it may raise eyebrows here too. They do look nice in the article, but i'd be rid of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Could we have more 'generic' images, perhaps? Not essential, but it would aesthetically liven up the article somewhat. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• How about some 'quoteboxes' at the side in various places? By no means essential for GAN, but I think it livens the visual appearance of the article up a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• "Bell et al.′s". I've never seen the "et al" used in an article here before. It certainly won't prevent it from passing GAN, but I do wonder if listing the three author names might be more appropriate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• In the Bibliography, Johnson's Strong Mothers, Weak Wives lacks any location data. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• The formatting of the entries in "Journal" seems a little funny to me. In the "journal" citation template, "title" is usually for the title of the article, not the title of the journal itself. I would recommending sorting that out (see for instance the formatting of the journals in my recent FA, Mortimer Wheeler, to understand what I am getting at). Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• When mentioning things like "Oedipal complexes", make sure that you have a link there, because many readers won't be familiar with these specialist terms. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• "their data were not obtained" - Shouldn't this be "was not obtained"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• I see hat you have tended to only have citations at the very end of paragraphs. I would recommend that you include citations within the paragraphs too, particularly after any direct quotations. Otherwise we have a situation where a reader may think that only the final sentence of a paragraph is actually cited, and that the rest of the paragraph is not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• In the lede, it is probably worth specifying the nationality of the authors, the country of publication etc. I'm guessing that this was an entirely U.S.-based project, but this isn't actually spelled out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• The term "Gay activist" is used a few times in the article, but might "gay rights activist" be more appropriate? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

All in all, I will be pretty happy to pass this as a Good Article. It is well written, well sourced, and well researched. It is of course a little dense, in particular when it comes to the reception of the book, and this will put some readers off, but that is certainly no barrier to GA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article, Midnightblueowl.

Regarding images: the images of other books (eg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women and Homosexuality: An Annotated Bibliography) can be removed without difficulty. You may be right to question whether "we can legitimately use non-free images of book covers other than the cover of Sexual Preference itself". Although this is an article where it is particularly difficult to find appropriate images other than the image of the book itself and its statistical appendix, it may be possible to find public domain images of Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey and use them in the article, with captions describing how their ideas relate to those in Sexual Preference. This would be reasonable, inasmuch as they are both discussed in the text. The image of Freud currently used in the Freud article is certainly public domain; the image of Kinsey currently used in the Kinsey article appears to be public domain as well.

Regarding the use of "Bell et al" rather than "Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith" - I think that in an article as long as this one, the repeated use of "Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith", over and over again, would be absolutely maddening. "Bell et al" is a lot shorter, and thus seems preferable to me, especially given how long the article already is. I wouldn't want to do anything to make it needlessly longer.

"In the Bibliography, Johnson's Strong Mothers, Weak Wives lacks any location data." I have now fixed that; thanks for pointing this out.

Regarding the formatting of the entries in "Journal", thank you for drawing attention to this and for directing me to Mortimer Wheeler for an example of how it should be formatted. I will attempt to fix this issue in the near future. Fixed.

Regarding the linking of technical terms, I have linked Oedipal to Oedipus complex, as per your suggestion. If there is other technical terminology that needs linking and which I have overlooked, I will link it, if you could point it out.

Regarding, "their data were not obtained", I have now changed this to "their data was not obtained", as per your suggestion.

Your point about citations is reasonable. I will add citations after most, at least, of the direct quotations within the next couple of days. I should note, however, that there are at least a few cases (eg, cases where the direct quotation is from a relatively short review of the book that took up a single page or less) where this may be either awkward, since it would involve citing the same page multiple times, or unnecessary.

The lead could be modified as you suggest, to mention the nationality of the book's authors and other details. However, I would note that the opening sentence - "Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women is a 1981 book about the development of sexual orientation by psychologist Alan P. Bell and sociologists Martin S. Weinberg and Sue Kiefer Hammersmith, in which Bell et al. reevaluate what were then widely held ideas about the origins of heterosexuality and homosexuality, sometimes rejecting entirely the factors proposed as causes, and in other cases concluding that their importance had been exaggerated" - is already quite long and involved, and adding "American" before "psychologist", and again before "sociologists", would make it even more so. I think it might be both easier and more appropriate to fit some added detail into the shorter second sentence ("The study was a publication of the Institute for Sex Research, and was produced with the help of the National Institute of Mental Health"). The best way of including nationality may be to explain which nation (the United States) the National Institute of Mental Health is associated with.

I have changed "gay activist" to "gay rights activist", as per your suggestion.

Regarding the reception section: yes, I realize that it is long and rather complicated, and thus possibly too much for some readers, but this is inevitable given the nature of the subject. The book has been the subject of some controversy, the controversy deals with many very complicated issues, and it is necessary to go into some detail in order to adequately explain these issues to readers. I have exercised some caution and discretion in what I added to the reception section. There was plenty of material that I could have used, but ultimately decided against, for various reasons. I have also tried to condense and simplify the material as much as reasonably possible.

At this stage I have done very nearly everything I think I can to improve the article. I have adopted your suggestions whenever possible. There is little more I can do, Midnightblueowl, unless you wish to make further or more specific suggestions (eg, if you think I should remove the image of Sexual Preference′s Statistical Appendix, I'd certainly do that). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the "Statistical Appendix" image is necessary, so it might be best to be rid of that but otherwise I am certainly happy to pass this article as a GA. If you wish to take it further, I would definitely suggest Peer Review, with a particular eye to trimming down the "Reception" section. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg

The "reception" section of the article is very thorough, and I believe that I have succeeded in adding almost all commentary on Sexual Preference that is of any importance. However, there is at least one review of the book that I have not been able to locate: that of Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg. I have come across various articles by Aardweg that discuss Sexual Preference, however, none of them appear to be suitable as sources for the article. If anyone can help find a review by Aardweg that was published in a journal that would qualify as a reliable source, I would be very grateful (I realize there may be little chance of anyone responding to this comment, but I am making it nonetheless). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Further to the above, I would be extremely grateful if anyone could draw it to my attention if there are any important reviews or discussions of the book I have missed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Questionable

See WP:TEXTBOOKS - the issue I have with this article is that it conflates the book with the Kinsey study along with other books written about the same or similar topic. Aside from the copyright issues that took precedence in my prior queries for clarity, other concerns include potential OR/editorializing and SYNTH as it relates to reviews about the study vs the book itself. There is also far too much detail, an excessive and questionable Bibliography that includes books that are neither written by the author, nor do they reference/cite this book because some of them are dated before the book was published. Regarding the issues involving the study vs the book, one example is the cited NYTimes article which clearly states, "The report, to be published as a book, is likely to arouse controversy...". Another reference, The London Review of Books actually reviews 4 books in their article titled "Homo Sexualis", and states: "This is the language spoken in the new Kinsey Institute study, Sexual Preference", provides an opinion about the study and includes passages from the other 3 books listed. The book itself did not receive mention beyond the study in that review. I simply want to make sure that once the copyvio issues have been resolved, that this article satisfies WP:BOOKCRIT. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here, Atsme. Unfortunately, most of your comment makes little sense. The article does not conflate anything with anything else. Least of all does it conflate Sexual Preference with "other books written about the same or similar topic"; that is simply false. You have alleged, but not convincingly demonstrated, the existence of a copyright problem. You assert that there is "potential OR/editorializing and SYNTH as it relates to reviews about the study vs the book itself". If you believe that the article contains original research, editorializing, and so forth, then by all means point to specific cases; a vague, generalized accusation is not helpful. I can understand why you might suggest that article contains too much detail. In response, let me point out that the article deals with an extremely complicated subject. Where the reviews are concerned, for example, it is necessary to go into a certain amount of detail about what the reviewers liked or did not like about the book, or why they were or were not convinced by its approach and its conclusions, in order for the material to be of any use to readers. I have tried to cut back anything in the reviews that was truly dispensable or inessential. The detail about the book in the "Summary" section is justified given the existence of a large amount of detailed commentary on the book in scholarly literature. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You also write, "excessive and questionable Bibliography that includes books that are neither written by the author, nor do they reference/cite this book because some of them are dated before the book was published". I have no idea why you would say that. Again, point to specific examples and explain the problem clearly or what you are saying is of no use. The New York Times article you mention above of course predates the book's publication; but it is perfectly reasonable to cite it here as it has an obvious and direct relevance to the book. In this case, I can only suggest you are seeing a problem where none exists. The fact that the London Review of Books article reviews other books besides Sexual Preference is totally irelevant, and again, it seems that you are trying to suggest a problem where there is none. I am aware that there is a distinction between the study Sexual Preference was based upon and the book itself, but the two are sufficiently closely connected that a discussion of the study is unambiguously relevant to the article about the book. It ought to be obvious that if someone starts by talking about the book and then discusses the study, the discussion of the study is also a discussion of the book. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your walls of text are not helpful. The Bibliography answers your questions, particularly where dates are included. We know when the book was published, so anything prior to its publication is clearly not referencing the book. I have also requested expert opinions, and while I'm happy to respond to questions I'm comfortable answering, I prefer not to venture into areas where ambiguities and uncertainty may exist. There is plenty of time to allow other editors an opportunity to respond. I have no intention of engaging you in a debate over the obvious. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

What really isn't helpful is for you to make a series of claims that are incorrect, irrelevant, or unsubstantiated. You tried to suggest that the review of Sexual Preference in the London Review of Books is not really a discussion of the book but a discussion of the study; you are incorrect about that. The LRB article reviews the published book and it discusses the study only inasmuch as the book is based on the study. You write, "The Bibliography answers your questions, particularly where dates are included." In fact there are a small number of books and articles published before 1981, but they are cited here because they are relevant to Sexual Preference in one way or another. If you wanted to know why they are relevant and why they are cited, I could easily explain that: in each case there is a good reason that I could explain if you cared to listen. You don't seem to have considered how complicated a task it is write an article about Sexual Preference or how those books and articles might be relevant to that very complicated task. As for, "We know when the book was published, so anything prior to its publication is clearly not referencing the book": if a newspaper article discusses the reaction a book is likely to get before its publication, that's obviously relevant to the book. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention of debating you FKC - it feels too much like WP:BATTLEGROUND. Have you read any of the WP:PAGs I’ve provided regarding the issues I brought to your attention? The best advice I can share with you now is to focus on the potential copyvios and quotation overkill in the articles you’ve created/edited, some of which are being reviewed, and get the problems fixed expediently. JLAN can provide more information about the consequences of repeated copyvios, and is very knowledgeable about the procedures. You should also review WP:DCV, and the section “Addressing contributors”. Copyvios carry consequences which includes blocking. I haven’t decided if I’m going to nominate this article for AfD, and will add that your arguments are not convincing. If anything, you have raised more concern relating to potential WP:OR issues. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 04:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

If you do not intend to debate me, just what do you intend to do? To announce over and over again that you are right and expect every other editor to automatically agree with you? Things don't work that way here. Your link WP:TEXTBOOKS leads to an irrelevant discussion. It begins: "Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores." None of that is true in the case of Sexual Preference, which isn't a textbook. The existence of copyright violations and original research in the article is something you have repeatedly alleged but never once demonstrated. Other articles are irrelevant and off-topic and you shouldn't even be discussing them here: stick to the subject. Nominating the article for deletion would be disruptive as it deals with a clearly notable subject, as you have been told by three people now: myself, Amorymeltzer (seen here), and Midnightblueowl (seen (here). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Note on sources

Atsme has alleged the existence of some sinister significance in the fact that some of the sources used in the article appeared prior to 1981, when Sexual Preference was first published. I offered to explain why they were cited but she ignored me and responded with further accusations. For the benefit of anyone following this, I will identify these sources and explain why they are used. The first source - - is Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg's 1972 book Homosexuality: An Annotated Bibliography. The book is cited just once, simply to establish that its date of publication was in fact 1972. The second source - - is Bell and Weinberg's 1978 book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. It is also cited just once, and again the only reason is to be clear about its date of publication. The sole remaining source - - is an article published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. It is cited to support the statement, 'Bell wrote that in the study he had "borrowed heavily from the psychodynamic view of sexual development", while his sociologist co-authors had ensured that the study's data could be used to evaluate conditioning and labeling theory' - "the study" being the study that Sexual Preference is based upon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Opening/reception

@Genericusername57: you undid my edit to remove the undue weight mentioning reception in the open. Actually, I removed the undue weight on negative reception which came from psychoanalysts who hated the fact their lifeswork had been discredited. The paragraph is fine briefly mentioning the negative reviews, but to leave it as is silly when actually most of the reviews are positive, not critical. The focus on 'negative reception' is a hallmark characteristic of Freeknowldgecreator's edits, a banned sockpuppet who did in fact support conversion therapy and psychoanalysis. Sxologist (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Just as another comment, many of the 'negative reviews' come from people who later shifted their view entirely. One such man is Richard Green, who is posited as saying homosexuality is the result of negative parenting, but later on who shifted his view. FKC knows this but injected the views of countless psychoanalysts rather than actually giving fair balance to the reception of this work. Bell et als. work has largely been replicated again and again. Sxologist (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If the negative reviews are mostly psychoanalysts, then this can be reflected in the lead. The lead can also make clear the current scientific consensus, even though those sources are not about the book per se, per WP:FRINGE. Some reviews may also need to be cut. I do think that we should be more skeptical than normal that the reviews listed are WP:Due because of this article's origins. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)