Talk:Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality

NPOV?

The reviews of the book on this article suggests it only took praise, but a quick search within one of the sources showed that it is also been critized. A matter the original writer of the article forgot or looked over it. I fixed one of them , but at this moment the article looks like it lacks NPOV. So, I suggest we look better into the subject. Mathijsloo (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The one from the Guardian has been redone already, and the Publishers' Weekly one has been expanded. I don't know of any others. Please share specific suggestions. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Original research

The entirety of the "Summary" section is comprised of original research. There are no sources but the book itself, so the editor who wrote the section basically included his or her understanding of the ideas of the original work. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs secondary sources that can attest to possible interpretations of published works. As it stands right now, the section is original research. Best regards--Freddy eduardo (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It is a proper use of the WP:PRIMARY source of the book itself. I'm not sure what "interpretation" is allegedly going on. It simply describes it. It is very common for articles on books, movies, and so on to provide just such a synopsis. This seems to be an extraordinary demand. The tag should be removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

As you can see in Wikipedia:No original research, the rule is extremely clear in regards to this and I quote: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." (the emphasis is from the rule, not mine). And also: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation".--Freddy eduardo (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Freddy eduardo: Please help me understand. You don't have to identify all the violations, of course. But could you provide one or two examples of how the summary analyzes, evaluates, interprets, or synthesizes material from the book? Thank you. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The entire section is a synthesis of the work and an interpretation of the ideas in it.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Freddy eduardo: Your vague reply is unhelpful. Is it really too much trouble for you to provide one or two specific examples? My request is not unreasonable. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it contains no synthesis or interpretation I can see, just description. Per WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. This is quite in line with that and with many other book articles. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That said, the list of organizations added here may be undue, though perhaps an integration of a small part with the rest of it can be done since WPUK has an article (the other is a redirect) and it's good to link to relevant articles. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Per our policy on summaries, I wouldn't call it original research. The list of organizations probably shouldn't be included though. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Summary sections are common and very useful in articles about fiction and non-fiction books (See for example The Lord of the Rings, The Second Sex or The Communist Manifesto, all of which rely mainly on primary sources). Actually, I'd like to congratulate Crossroads for writing this one. - Daveout(talk) 01:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Seconded! And thanks for saying so @Daveout AndyGordon (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

NPOV issues

It seems (from the article history, from the discussion here, and also at Talk:Helen Joyce that a number of editors feel this article is indeed written from a non-neutral point of view. I am accordingly reinstating the NPOV template, though I think that we could do with a closer look at the sources to work the issue through. Thanks, The Land (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The concerns of Mathijsloo have been addressed already, and only one editor at this article has been insisting on tags. I haven't gotten anything specific from that one yet, but if I do I am happy to add them or let someone else do so. The section in question at Helen Joyce differs significantly, and I see no reason to apply here what people think of that one, which is its own issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mathijsloo:; @OwenBlacker:; @Newimpartial: - would be curious to hear if you could expand on your concerns in more detail, or indicate if they've been addressed already. Thanks, The Land (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

And I'll add, please state specifically how they could be addressed based on sources on this topic per the instructions at Template:POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

New review

There is now an additional academic review of Trans, which someone more patient than I could work into this article: Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Thanks for flagging that! After scratching my head a bit about the quality of that as a source, I've added it in the Reviews section. (Looking at the content of Critical Legal Thinking, the authors they work with - who are all law academics - and the credentials of the author of the review, who is a Professor of Law at Warwick University, I'm satisfied it more than meets the criteria for inclusion). The Land (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Excessive reliance on the Telegraph

Per WP:TELEGRAPH, the Telegraph, at a minimum, requires attribution whenever it is used to cover trans topics... but it would be best to replace it with a higher-quality source in any case; even if it weren't for the reliability concerns, and even if it didn't have the hard requirement for attribution, excessive reliance on a single biased source risks giving its position undue weight. --Aquillion (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)