Talk:Susan Stryker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

We are having trouble establishing whether the subject of this BLP meets WP:BIO. The most relevant avenues would seem WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. These are two possibilities, but neither is particularly strong:

  • Although she is the recipient of a Lambda award, it was not based on a work of her own (she was its editor).
  • Although the mainpage says she received an Emmy award, she actually received the "San Francisco/Northern California Emmy Award", not the very notable Emmy Award

The subject does not appear to meet any other criterion of WP:PROF. Only few of her pubs are peer-reviewed, and she has a GS h-index of about 11, which is not very high.
The only coverage of the subject in a secondary source appears to be a brief piece in a local Chicago LGBT newspaper. All well and good, but not a clear indication of WP:GNG, and it is the only one apparent at all. Any assistance in establishing notability would be appreciated.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could just fall back on her current list of awards and accomplishments. This article will never get deleted as she flies over GNG. Insomesia (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If Stryker was at all involved in the Bailey's now 10 year old book, it's news to me. Your trouble with WP:AGF is neither nor there, but it does suggest that a reasoned discussion on this topic is not going to be had with you, and outside opinions will need to be sought.
To get back to the topic, you are saying that her notability is based upon her awards. Here on WP, there are very clear guidelines about what kinds of awards demonstrate notability, and they all include being a well-known national or international award. For the first two claims on the page (an "Emmy" and a Lambda), I have already indicated why they are not clear indicators. If you would like to list the awards which you believe are on the level described in WP:BIO (the Olympics, a real Emmy, etc.), I will be happy to indicate why I disagree (or that you have convinced me). If you are arguing that multiple local or low-level awards in combination establish her notability, then I can only suggest you peruse the discussions going on at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem ready to deny guidelines and ignore the obvious let me be more plain, She flies over WP:GNG]

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

How you feign ignorance of her significance while also targeting other transgender activists is alarming but to each their own. Insomesia (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feigning? No, I am genuinely ignorant.
You have thus far called me (essentially) a liar and attributed my motives to everything from some kind of revenge to politics to transphobia...everything except AGF and that I simply have an opinion similar to User:Peteforsyth's that this is not a clear case and that we need to do some searching and thinking. If you cannot conduct yourself in an appropriate manner, I can suggest only that you limit yourself to addressing the thus-far uninvolved editors and the points on the pages rather than me.
WP:GNG says sources (plural) and WP:BIO is explicit in saying multiple sources. A single source, in a local community paper, with an unknown reputation for fact-checking is, at best, debatable. As User:Peteforsyth correctly says "if she is as influential as she appears to be, I suspect there are other good sources out there". That you cannot find any and instead distract from the issue by attacking me says the rest.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be very emotionally invested in removing this article. Maybe let other editors lead on this? Insomesia (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insomesia, your repeated speculation about James' state of mind are definitely not contributing to the resolution of the issues at hand. I would strongly urge you to stop making comments like the one above. -Pete (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's more to the situation which I hope we can avoid getting into; however I see that my comments are counter to the atmosphere I would like to be in so will work more cautiously in this situation. Insomesia (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this article listed on the WP:Notability/Noticeboard, and looked into the sourcing. I don't have any prior knowledge of the subject of this article. In my view, and based on the many notability debates I've taken part in, this seems like a borderline case, per the GNG and WP:BIO. It seems to me that footnote [4] (the Windy City article) would be of central importance to demonstrate notability, as the other sources mostly only verify one or two points about Stryker, or are insufficiently independent of her. The Windy City article offers a reasonably comprehensive overview of her career, and (as far as I can tell from a cursory look) is editorially independent. I don't know whether or not this would be considered a reliable source in this context; the site does not give a clear presentation of its editorial policy, its history, etc., so for someone like me without much background knowledge, it's hard to know how well respected a publication it is. However, assuming it qualifies as a reliable source, its first sentence offers a compelling assertion of notability: "a leading scholar of transgender theory and history".

My general take is that she passes the GNG, but only just. An AFD would be warranted if anybody wants to start it, but short of that, in my opinion, the notability banner should be removed. One final thought -- if she is as influential as she appears to be, I suspect there are other good sources out there. Finding them and adding them to the article might be a more decisive way to move forward. -Pete (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, there's a reason I got JSTOR added to the "Find sources" template. Her works have been reviewed in Signs, the Pacific Historical Review, Women's Studies Quarterly, and Teaching Sociology. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pleasure to have an actual WP-based discussion. Yes, having a work with multiple published reviews would meet WP:AUTHOR#3.
JSTOR reveals these reviews:
Transgender history was reviewed in Signs.
Transgender studies reader was reviewed in Women's Studies Quarterly and in Teaching Sociology.
Gay by the bay was reviewed in Pacific Historical Review.
That is, the one receiving 2+ reviews is the Transgender studies reader. The problem/question/issue with that one, however, is what I said before: Stryker didn't write it. She edited it. (That is, she brought together the writings of other people and published them as a set with whatever commentary and input of her own.) It is not clear to me if that counts. Hence my question and our need for input from uninvolved folks.
— James Cantor (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources clearly treat the work Stryker did in selecting and introducing the material as important, singling out the former in particular as a great strength of the book. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. If editing a volume counts like authoring it, then Stryker would indeed meet WP:AUTHOR#3. As a side note, I don't think whether the reviews were positive or negative (or how much so) actually matters. That the work was important enough to receive reviews in multiple independent outlets is the guideline.— James Cantor (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So...Do you know if there is a such a WP guideline or precedent? There are very, very many academics who edit rather than author books which are then reviewed in journals, so this would seem an important point.— James Cantor (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but it seems like the right place to go to propose such a clarification would be the talk page of WP:ACADEMIC. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Will do. I'll also put a link to the discussion to N/N.— James Cantor (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted the question at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Does_editing_a_book_count_like_authoring_a_book_for_WP:AUTHOR.233.3F.— James Cantor (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at a few of the reviews, I'm satisfied that Stryker clears the notability threshold. As Roscelese points out, the reception of Transgender Studies Reader, the volume Stryker "merely" edited, credits both editors with having accomplished something important to the field: "coeditors Susan Stryker and Stephen Whittle successfully encapsulate the evolutionary discourse of what (in the past decade) has been labeled “transgender studies.” What makes The Transgender Studies Reader invaluable to the field is the ability of its contributors to show how we have arrived at this moment, how individuals and ideas responded to and built upon one another." http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/wsq/v036/36.3-4.smith.pdf] In addition, the review of Transgender History, which she authored, identifies her as having advanced the field. The fact that all these reviews appear in peer reviewed journals, which WP:RS considers "usually the most reliable sources," is significant as well; it demonstrates that the experts who reviewed the reviews prior to publication consider these assessments valid and suitable for publication. So these reviews carry more weight than reviews published in a more mainstream/less rigorous publication. While it's true that the number of reviews found (at least thus far) is not compelling in itself, the specific claims within the reviews that Stryker has accomplished something of significance to her field remove all doubt, in my mind, of her notability. In addition, on closer inspection, the Windy City Times actually does present itself in context, you just have to dig for it a little -- it states "Windy City Times is the only Chicago gay media outlet with demographics audited by outside companies" and that it has won numerous awards since its inception in 1985: [1] At this point I think the notability banner can be decisively removed. -Pete (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stryker is very well-known and notable within gender studies. I'm surprised at the questioning of her notability. I really wish that, before challenging notability, editors ought to consult with other editors who are expert in the relevant field. Please note that for academics (see WP:PROF), it's also not just "reviews of books" (whether edited or authored), but citations to books/papers that determine notability within a field. --Lquilter (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that point is made very clearly in WP:PROF, which was consulted extensively in this process. The guideline also notes that access to the databases that make it easy to track citations is expensive. So it certainly does "take a village" to get through these issues. I disagree that anything improper was done here. The notability was not easy to establish without knowledge of the field and/or access to paid resources. Through a discussion of notability, this article has been substantially improved, and the subject's notability has been made much more clear not only to the few people in this discussion, but to every reader of the article. Let's keep in mind that the main goal -- sharing knowledge -- has been served well by this process, even if it was a little uncomfortable in the execution. -Pete (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'm glad the process "worked" and resulted in improvement. It's sad if it takes an AFD or notability challenge to get improvement on an article, but that's a systemic problem. My main concern is that sometimes articles slip thru the cracks and don't get improved, but get deleted. A bit more work on the part of nominating editors to be aware of systemic bias in content creation and development would help, so that things that "most" editors know doesn't eliminate things that are appropriately encyclopedic. --Lquilter (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Individual awards and their notability wrt WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, etc.[edit]

Seven potential honours have been provided to establish the notability of this subject. These are my reasons for why they do not establish GNG. (Two of these honours I discussed in a prior edit, and I am pasting them again here for easier reference.)

  1. Although she is the recipient of a Lambda award, it was not based on a work of her own (she was its editor).
  2. Although the mainpage says she received an Emmy award, she actually received the "San Francisco/Northern California Emmy Award", not the very notable Emmy Award
  3. Nomination for GLAAD media award for an article posted on Salon.com. As per WP:AUTHOR, nominations do not establish notability, except for multiple nominations for well-known awards.
  4. Community Vanguard Award from the Transgender Law Center. This is a local community award, not a well-known national or international one.
  5. Local Hero Award from station KQED. As much as I like public radio, it's a local hero award, not a well-known national or international hero award.
  6. Paul Monette Award finalist. As per WP:AUTHOR guidelines, being a finalist does not establish notability, except for multiple nominations for well-known awards.
  7. Lambda Literary Award nomination for photographic book, two nominations. For a photographic book, the relevant guideline is WP:ARTIST, and the nomination is not nearly on par with those listed (such as "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"). (Incidentally, I was also unable to find evidence for these nominations on Lambda's site, which is searchable.)

Finally, regarding the actual source for these latter five honours, a bio for electing the marshals of a Pride parade is not exactly what I would call a reliable, encyclopedic source. I make no claims about how the culture of various deletion discussions vary from guidelines-as-written, but as written, this BLP does not as yet meet them.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of energy you put into trying to discredit her is amazing. I don't see anything as convincing you otherwise and you certainly are not swaying me so nominate for deletion if you really feel the subject doesn't meet the notability threshold. I have little doubt how the discussion will go. Insomesia (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. Actually, I am perfectly entitled to hold you responsible for your own comments, even if you regret having made them and attempt to remove them from view. (I will not escalate the obvious problem by re-introducing them, but the interested reader can see them at here or here
2. Your comments continue to be about me rather than about the subject and continue to ignore the actual cites and guidelines. So, there is little more I can add, and it will have to be noninvolved editors to evaluate the situation, as I noted already. Am I correct to conclude that you are unwilling to seek any noninvolved editors, such as by posting to relevant projects? I note you have brought this to the notability noticeboard---that is, indeed, a positive and potentially productive response. My experience, however, is that that noticeboard is not widely perused. I believe relevant wikiprojects would gather more eyes.
3. I do not pretend to be able to predict the outcome of an AfD. (Nor do I claim to be attached to whatever outcome.) I point out only that the arguments/evidence presented do not match the guidelines, as they are written. It is unfortunate when a discussion includes every possible (and unevidenced) ill motivation, but not the obvious AGF one.
— James Cantor (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I have to look to others who point out that you are "obsessed with trying to spin every entry that concerns transgender people and especially theories of trans etiology to conform to Blanchardian and Zuckerian ideology." And, of course, Stryker does not necessarily agree with you. That she is ideologically opposed to some of your beliefs may be a conflict of interest, or more accurately another conflict of interest in which you seem to have many on Wikipedia. Wiping out an an entire article of a person who is arguably your opponent in many views seems like a very troubling area. Maybe other editors will be able to be more balanced in their views. Insomesia (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what you actually have look to at is WP guidelines. I suggest WP:COI, which explicitly permits and invites contributions from topic experts, WP:Expert retention, and WP:NPA. If you believe there is an actual COI problem, do please bring it up to WP:COI/N to receive their input. (I double check things there regularly.) If you are unwilling to do so, then you are simply generating accusations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, in violation of multiple policies.
— James Cantor (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue seems resolved now and I would prefer not to deal with your possible COI issues anymore. I think COI editing has been a big problem in the past and you would do well to simply avoid these articles where a reasonable person would question the connection. Insomesia (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New lede 25/3/16[edit]

Most of the old lede was not represented in the main article. Valetude (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring Over Sexuality[edit]

A single editor using multiple IP addresses including is removing any reference to Susan Stryker being a lesbian. No reason has been given in the edit summaries so they have been reverted. Please let's discuss this issue on the talk page here instead of changing the page back and forth. Rab V (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for future book and film article creations[edit]

Here's sources for her books and the one major film that could be used to make proper full articles on them.

  • Gay by the Bay
  • Queer Pulp
  • The Transgender Studies Reader 1/2
  • Screaming Queens

I hope these prove helpful! SilverserenC 00:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susan_Stryker&oldid=1209245929"