Talk:Debra Soh

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

Notability[edit]

On what grounds does Soh meet WP:JOURNALIST? I don't think a single interview and an off-hand mention in an article about a larger movement meets the criteria ("The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."). Neither has she produced any significant new concepts, theories or techniques, or a well-known body of work. TropicalFishes (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better Source for Ph.D?[edit]

Is there an source indicating receipt of a Ph.D. from Ryerson that isn't self-published? Probably the subject's own LinkedIn page is not the most authoritative source for this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manicjedi (talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was resolved by another user, but just in case I'm contributing to the discussion (I'm in the process of evaluating the sources already provided as per the checklist I've added above). Here is the source provided by another user to indicate her education (along with her LinkedIn): "Past Oral Defences". Graduate Program in Psychology. York University. Retrieved November 1, 2018.

Debra Soh -  defended her Dissertation entitled: "Functional and Structural Neuroimaging of Paraphilic Hypersexuality in Men", on Friday, June 17, 2016 at 11:00am in 1015 Sherman Health Science Research Centre. Examining Committee: K. Schneider, J. Cantor, G. Turner, D. Stevens, D. Vanderlann, C. Davis

I believe that this would qualify as an independent and authoritative source for the purposes of verifying her education. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 05:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three and a half years later, and a claim of a PhD has been removed for insufficient evidence. I’ve sent out an email to York University’s administrative secretary (wasn’t sure who else to address it to), so hopefully they’ll get back to me with the nature of her PhD. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Debra Soh[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is an ongoing effort to have her Wikipedia page removed, based on the notion that she's not a journalist. This is nonsense. She contributes greatly to the discussion of sex and gender issues in the public sphere. She has a huge following that disperses her work globally. Her output is based in clear and well established science. Those who oppose her oppose that science. I love Wikipedia. Please don't cave on this. We need this place to be truly an open forum. Grantleyjo (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Grantleyjo: The correct place to discuss this is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debra W. Soh; if you don't have reliable sources that demonstrate that your arguments are correct, they are unlikely to have much weight. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to improve article lifted from AfD discussion[edit]

In anticipation of the results from the ongoing deletion discussion I've copied and pasted Debrah Soh's list of sources of coverage on her, so they can be incorporated into the article as per TropicalFishes's suggestion. This should provide convenience for an editor who wishes to work on the page.

I've listed them in chronological order.

Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 05:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While working on the article I've found a potential source: "Soh Grabher expert report - final for Oct. 19" (PDF). Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. October 19, 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 17, 2018. Retrieved November 16, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
It is an affidavit submitted to a court that details her expertise and evaluations. Additionally, if we find a secondary source, we may be able to use any coverage of her involvement in this case within the article. Quoting the affidavit:

I have been retained to provide an objective opinion for the Court regarding the contents of Carrie Rentschler’s expert report, regarding whether Mr. Grabher’s personalized license plate endangers women, contributes to “rape culture,” and is a violent “speech act.”

This source should not, however, be used on its own! Please refer to both their website's about page (and its sub-pages) and their wikipedia article for help interpreting bias. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 06:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this is an affidavit supplied in the court case Grabher v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles in which a man's last name is being considered as an act of violence against women: "Academics collide on man's 'socially unacceptable' name". The South Bayview Bulldog. October 25, 2018. Retrieved November 17, 2018. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
The case will be heard "in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Halifax on April 23-25, 2019." Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 09:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Background information from biased source provided here:
More info here:
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 09:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reynolds, Christopher (February 14, 2016). "Closing of CAMH clinic fans controversy over gender-questioning children". The Toronto Star. Retrieved November 17, 2018. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the above sources are unlikely to meet WP:SOURCES requirements. In particular, The Daily Wire is known for publishing false and misleading stories, and The Federalist is an opinion website. I also doubt whether a blog post written pseudonuymously by "Neuroskeptic" can be considered reliable. Even if the material cited is uncontroversial, sources need to be high-quality to establish both due weight and notability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the source, is it fair to have written about Dr. Rentschler while keeping in mind guidelines about writing about living persons?[edit]

After the nomination for deletion failed I was hoping that more people would help me incorporate the sources, but now I really need someone's insight as to whether this edit was poor judgment now that I'm rereading the guide to writing about living persons (and trying to revise my editing based off of it). The source I'm using does say this and I understand that I'm supposed to parrot other sources, however, now I'm questioning whether we can fairly say that professor Rentschler is saying those things (it's based on their interpretation of potentially out-of-context snippets from the affidavit). Please fix my writing if I'm using poor judgment with regard to writing about living persons or getting this wrong any other way. Perhaps that section should be deleted until further coverage of this case is produced as we approach the case. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 06:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I made further edits after that one, so refer to the main article for the current state of that snippet highlighted by the edit history link. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 06:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the list of things Rentschler is quoted as saying is pretty long and I would have just used the most general of them "promotes violence against women", since repeating all of them would get too long for what we're trying to do here.
The other note is that we should not say, in Wikipedia's voice, that some future event will occur. We can say "scheduled to be heard" instead, for instance, but not "will be heard".
I can see the side that argued for deletion of the article. The references do not include much in the way of independent coverage of Soh. Anything you can find that helps fill out her overall story would be good. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, jmcgnh. I worried about even including this section, since I could see this turning into a big sensationalist fuss with the way those topics are covered. And, according to that guide to writing about living persons, we're supposed to avoid things that could contribute to that kind of coverage (in this case I'm thinking about Dr. Rentschler if those quotes are being taken far out of context). That was my primary reason for asking for help after reviewing the guide to writing about living persons. I've made the changes you suggested. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 08:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion sources[edit]

I've removed several references from the article that were op-eds or other opinion essays. Per RS guidelines, opinion sources are generally not reliable for factual claims, since they lack editorial control and fact-checking. Even if used for basic, uncontroversial facts, such sources are still biased toward whatever happens to be in the news at the moment, and so don't help with establishing due weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lorne Grabher court case[edit]

Soh was engaged by the legal advocacy group Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms in 2018 to provide an expert rebuttal of Carrie Rentschler's expert report in a case over whether Nova Scotian Lorne Grabher's last name can be on his license plate. Soh argued against Rentschler's contention that Grabher's last name constituted the promotion of violence against women.[1][2]
  1. ^ "Academics collide on man's 'socially unacceptable' name". The South Bayview Bulldog. October 25, 2018.
  2. ^ Soh, Debra W. (October 19, 2018). "Expert Report: Lorne Grabher v. Nova Scotia Registrar of Motor Vehicles" (PDF). Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

I've removed this info as having a disproportionate focus on a recent event that has almost no independent coverage. A Google search turned up the above sources plus the JCCF's own website and a /pol/ thread. Court records should never be used according to policy, and The South Bayview Bulldog is essentially a local blog. I frankly doubt whether mainstream sources will report on this, and gratifying as it may be to be called as an expert witness, Wiki bios aren't résumés. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_W._Soh#cite_note-Saletan-9 "she left academia ..........[edit]

This statement suggests she was employed at a University or some similar institution. Can this be clarified? If this is, in fact, correct, it would be worth knowing what University she left and if she was "persuaded" to leave. I suggest this is important to the concept of academic freedom. Windvain (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Debra_Soh&oldid=1206300677"