Talk:Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Controversies section reverts by Lostsandwich[edit]

User:Lostsandwich has reverted the article a couple of times, erasing the Controversies section, which contains information from a Newsweek article. The second revert reason is: The edit is clear, there is no information provided that indicates the relevant article "generated significant levels of controversy and conversation in various social media." Neither of the linked articles do so. Mentioning some tweets do not meet any reasonable ground for "significant controversy".

These are reasonable arguments, and should be edited into the section accordingly. I don't agree with erasing the section entirely. It is newsworthy enough for Newsweek to write about this Journal, it is relevant for the article. Here's a rewrite, which I will insert back into the article after a day or two for User:Lostsandwich to review and add input.

The journal published "On Having Whiteness" by Donald Moss in May 2021. Journalists and academics on social media reacted strongly to the article. In the article, Moss wrote that "'white' people have a particular susceptibility" to the "parasitic" condition, which he claims "renders its hosts' appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse." He explained he believed whiteness establishes "entitled dominion" that enables the "host" to have "power without limit, force without restriction, violence without mercy," and increases one's drive to "terrorize."

Citations with archive links will be added including:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00030651211008507

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2021/06/us-research-article-claims-whiteness-is-a-malignant-parasitic-like-condition-with-no-cure.html

https://www.newsweek.com/research-article-medical-journal-describes-whiteness-malignant-parasitic-like-condition-1599129

https://www.foxnews.com/media/whiteness-a-parasitic-like-condition-with-no-cure-medical-journal-article-claims

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9670579/Psychoanalyst-condemned-paper-branding-whiteness-malignant-parasitic-like-condition.html

https://twitter.com/DrPhilipPellegr/status/1402413166567493632

174.130.2.140 (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here again you've failed to support your claim that there is significant controversy. Here are some important quotations about proper sourcing you need to satisfy. "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." And, with reference to the discussion of one single published paper, "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." This is not satisfied either. Most academic publications create discussion, that is their purpose. The many hundreds or thousands of peer-reviewed articles which people discuss are not significant enough for their own individual wikipedia entries.Lostsandwich (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Importantly, the small amount of twitter discussion makes no exemption to the User-generated content ruling, defined as such: "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, video and image hosting services, most wikis, and other collaboratively created websites." Look further to the "exceptional claims" subsection which states such claim may include; Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest. 23:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC) Lostsandwich (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, on the topic of being "newsworthy", Wikipedia itself has this to say: "Wikipedia isn't a news ticker. The fact that someone or something is newsworthy doesn't automatically justify an encyclopedia article. Newspapers and television stations report constantly on people who have been badly harmed, barely escaped disaster, done something horrible, or otherwise are unusual enough to justify 15 minutes of fame. Such stories don't make people and incidents into encyclopedic subjects". 23:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Lostsandwich (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated the article to reflect previous revision as already noted within this talk section across the previous paragraphs, as this continual attempt does not various sourcing, newsworthy and self publishing rules as already noted. Lostsandwich (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]