Talk:Jay Traver

WP:WEIGHT and organization concerns

Reading this article, I find myself seriously concerned about WP:WEIGHT. While notionally a biography of Traver, it ignores virtually her entire life and career and focuses solely on one 1951 publication in Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington. The Proceedings paper is certainly interesting in the way that it (tragically) illustrates an instance of delusional parasitosis from the point of view of a consummate scientist unaware of their condition—but it's not her entire personal or professional biography.

The article was built as a 'takedown' of Traver and her unfortunate illness, and suffers for it. (If she were still alive, we'd be getting close to WP:ATTACK and WP:BLP1E.) The cart is repeatedly placed before the horse, with the rebuttal or critique coming before the description of her actions or events.

For example, as I encountered the article earlier today, the entire lead section read:

Jay R. Traver (1894–1974) was a University of Massachusetts entomologist. Jeffrey Lockwood wrote in The Infested Mind: Why Humans Fear, Loathe, and Love Insects that she was responsible for "one of the most remarkable mistakes ever published in a scientific entomological journal".

The bulk of the text is a condemnation by a third party, with no explanation of what Traver did to garner such disapproval.

The first section of the biography's body (and the only section of the bio containing more than one sentence) is about the Proceedings paper. Strangely, the paper itself isn't even cited until the second paragraph. The first paragraph is devoted to a discussion about delusional parasitosis, and third-party sources discussing how Traver's symptoms align with that condition—but completely omit description of Traver's self-reported symptoms.

Traver's scientific career gets a single sentence about a 1935 book collaboration, and was tucked in after the four-paragraph Proceedings section. Again, this ordering of material (and neglect of the non-delusional aspects of her work) does a disservice to both reader and subject. A major reason why the Proceedings paper drew so much attention was because Traver was a highly-respected scientist (and indeed, her work is still cited today). A random non-expert with delusional parasitosis almost certainly would not have been able to publish a similar account. It is both interesting and tragic that Traver continued to publish good, solid science at the same time (though you wouldn't know it from this Wikipedia article).

I suspect that this article was created largely as a coatrack for (admittedly well-deserved) debunking of Traver's Proceedings article, which in more recent years has been cited by proponents of other dubious diagnoses like Morgellons. It pretty much presumes that a reader approaching it already knows about the Proceedings article, and is coming here solely to find out more about it.

I haven't deleted anything (so far), but I have moved the Lockwood line out of the lead, and moved the (very scant) Works section up. A lot of work is still required. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's what it looked like before I attempted cleanup of that mess. By all means, if someone has other sources about the rest of Traver's life, they should expand for balance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It's been four years since I looked at this article. Today I have searched Google, Google Scholar, Google Books and the New York Times.

1. Weight: I have found nothing else: zero that can be used to expand the article. This is what all the reliable sources I can find on Traver cover. If there's more, I haven't found it.
2. Organization: It is rare to put Works first in a Bio, but I do agree it works fine for this case, as it provides a better flow and introduction.
3. Re: BLP and ATTACK: this is not a BLP. Full stop. What is here is a reflection of what all the reliable independent sources so far identified have to say.
4. Re highly respected scientist, if you have independent sources stating that, and more, I'd be glad to see those sources and cover that territory.
5. Re "What she did to garner such disapproval", that was explained in the line you moved to the end.

If anyone can point to any other personal life, obituary, or professional info, I'll be more than happy to add it. The allegations of COATRACK, ATTACK are unjustified and unwarranted, as no alternate sources have been provided (or can be found) to substantiate them, and this is probably exactly what I found when I first had the same reaction four years ago and attempted to clean up what was here, when I also thought it was an attack bio. It's not; it's all that can be found, and it appears to be what she is most known for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia; I didn't mean to come across as attacking your work—I did look at the earlier revisions of the page, and you spun a fair bit of gold out the straw you were handed. Cleaning up drafts like this one can be exhausting.

I've retitled the 'Works' section as 'Career'; as you say, putting 'works' first would indeed be unusual, and the section wasn't actually a bibliography anyway.

I haven't been nearly as active over the last few years (family and work and other responsibilities - and hobbies - have cut into my Wikipedia time), but I really am still cognizant of where WP:BLP applies. I nevertheless still find it useful to refer occasionally to WP:BLP even when considering how to approach a non-living individual's biography. The principles in WP:BLP ought to be in our minds when writing any biography, even if the BLP policy itself isn't engaged. (When I ran across this article, I had just come from the Village Pump discussion about deadnaming of deceased trans individuals. A large minority of commenters there were prepared to be very cavalier about biographical subjects as soon as they passed from the protection of BLP, and it was very much top-of-mind for me as I started reading here.)

On reflection, I can name two major challenges in handling this article. The first is the paucity of online sources available for an entomologist who died nearly fifty years ago—and who may have done some of her most important work eighty or ninety years in the past (Ephemerella maculata says hello!)

The second, and perhaps more fundamental, challenge is that this biographical article isn't really a biographical article at all. As it stands, we have an article about a single scientific publication with an intriguing and tragic backstory, and some interesting repercussions. I suspect that disjoint is what ultimately underlies the twitchiness of my wiki-spider sense. We're taking a story about a document, an underlying illness, and the responses to it, and we're trying to jam them into a biography-shaped container.

I see no immediately-obvious 'right' way to address that mismatch. The paper itself isn't important enough to have its own article; it's no Principia Mathematica. It looks like it may be challenging-to-impossible to build a well-sourced, comprehensive biography of Jay Traver the scientist, which leaves us with this: Jay Traver the medical curiosity, an incredibly obscure Phineas Gage. Honestly, if the only genuinely notable aspect of her writing and illness is really the distorting effect it had on the study and treatment of delusional parasitosis, then the best thing to do might just be to merge it back there—despite the sunk cost of all the effort that went into attempting a biography here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, TOAT; good to see you back even if only occassionally. I've been having similar thoughts. Although I was initially troubled by your post, as I thought about it, I eventually remembered the effort and recalled how offended I was when I first saw the article, which did read like an attack, and was what led me to work on it, but later realized there were no other sources (which means I may have left the article only marginally better than I found it). I was halfway hoping you would be able to find some sources that I couldn't. Do you perchance have better journal access than I do? Might there be something I missed? If not, I have likewise come to the conclusion that the content may need to become part of delusional parasitosis; over ten years since the article was created, and several since I attempted cleanup, and yet nothing new has surfaced and it hasn't been linked anywhere else. If that (merger) is what we come up with, I'm not concerned about the lost work. I would just want to be sure we've been exhaustive in looking for any other possible sources before we decide ... Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't decipher what this is or whether it might be useful: https://www.academia.edu/1541450/Approaching_Morgellons_A_Former_Sufferers_Perspective SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Another 1984 paper ("see: John O’Donel Alexander, 1984, Arthropods and Human Skin") is mentioned in here: https://morgellonswatch.com/2007/08/28/a-history-of-the-fiber-disease/. But it seems to be just the original discovery about her dust mites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Found that here; nothing new. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep. When I said above that cleanup like the work you've done here can be 'exhausting', I perhaps should also have added 'thankless' and 'frustrating'.

I don't have the online journal and textbook access that I used to (of course, I would never suggest anyone use Sci-Hub...), and I can't really squeeze trips to the brick-and-mortar library in the way I once might have. It doesn't help that both entomology and taxonomy are waaaaaay outside my own areas of scientific expertise, so I don't know what I don't know, and I'm not sure where to look.

I appreciate your openness to my thoughts on this topic, but I also wouldn't want you to jump the gun on major changes (or a merge, or something else) based on any sort of over-reliance on my opinions. I think I've gotten as far as identifying the issues that bug me, but I'm a long way from being ready to endorse a particular solution. To abuse a metaphor, maybe there's a baby and maybe there's not; don't throw the bathwater out until you're sure. As this isn't a BLP, we can afford to take a bit more time to consider issues like this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a plan ... we let it ride for a bit to see if anyone else can turn up something. If not, merging is a good possibility. I will ask some other biology editors if they know who might be good bug editors or might have some helpful sources: @FunkMonk, Chiswick Chap, and Cwmhiraeth: Might you know of any biographical sources on Jay Traver that would help resolve the dilemma above (whether to merge away this article)? Also @Bon courage: I believe Bc is traveling, but might have helpful journal access. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

PS for those pinged: the article has relevance to the fringe morgellons, but I share the concerns raised by TOAT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I know little about invertebrate research, pinging Kevmin. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No longer in danger of merging away ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added some non-delusional material. The delusional stuff is certainly a WP:COATRACK and needs cutting down; I see good progress there but more is needed.

On the sudden lurch to Vancouver with the claimed justification of WP:CITEVAR, I note that the article was entirely in Last, First format and should immediately be returned to that. In any case, in the areas of evolutionary biology and natural history, there is no tradition at all of using Vancouver. For my money, we should never use a format which is distinguished by throwing away useful information in the form of forenames: it's as if we were choosing to make search as difficult as possible. It also makes discerning gender difficult, which is at best unhelpful: but I digress. The plain fact here is that the article was established in a non-Vanc style. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry ... sometimes I forget which article I'm in ... got caught in an edit conflict, and will return to that as soon as done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'm adding material from her obituary now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the ecs; i think I caught up on citevar, but pls address anything if I missed ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

PS, when you have time, I'm wondering why I could not locate Peters on a google scholar search; what's the secret key ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap OK, now I have this; shall I add the remaining biographical detail, or are you doing that? I'm happy to do it, but don't want to edit conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm working from now and this evening. I've recently cited and linked it in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Great; will avoid editing for now then. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

BTW I think we should move almost all the delusional material to the DP article, leaving a one- or two-sentence mention; that includes the "[DP] Legacy" material too as its focus is DP not Traver. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we wait til the article is a fully expanded bio, and to get other feedback? The questions of whether the article should be retracted, and how it came to be published, are legit legacy issues (that have had a Wakefield-like impact on patients) that are covered by three different journal authors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No hurry, but I'm agreeing with you that the weighting is well wrong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you still working? I have to go out for the rest of the day, but thought to add things like her exact birthdate, etc ... I can do if you're done, but won't be home 'til later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

All done, including the dates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

IPad editing from hotspot in car ... one of our Peters & Peters citations is content written by them, but most are from JAY R TRAVER (1894-1974) By Charles P, Alexander which is within Peters and Peters ... can we split this out with sfns or harvids? I can try when home, if you agree ... that is, most of what we are citing is written by her friend Alexander. Or perhaps split out with an sfn where we segregate Peters and Peters as editors, with Alexander as a chapter author or some such. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Added Alexander 1975. I've reorganized the DP section slightly, putting Traver's paper first (as I think we all agree is essential), and reordering the other material. I've removed a small amount of stuff which wasn't about Traver, and copy-edited for tone. It's now approaching a neutral encyclopedic report, though I'm still doubtful how much of it belongs in this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Holy crap. User:SandyGeorgia, User:Chiswick Chap—that was some heroic revision. Amazing work. I step away for a few hours and come back to a well-formed, rapidly-developing, bona fide biography. A night-and-day difference. It's the best kind of Wikipedia magic, and a privilege to see in action. I tip my hat. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Long day, just home, will catch up later tonight. It helps to have a bio/obit when writing a bio :) Not sure how CC found that, but I couldn't! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's in great shape now, all thanks to Chiswick Chap. I made these tweaks; largely, correcting her name, and the first version used mdy for an American subject and was in AmEng.

Regarding balance, CC's rewrite is excellent.

I think the balance problem is now gone. For sources, we have one obit/bio (Alexander (Charles) with Peters and Peters, which is only semi-independent-- written by friends) compared to six independent journal articles or books dealing with delusional parasitosis (Poorbaugh, Hinkle x 2, Shelomi, Lockwood, and Alexander (John) -- as well as the missing original Fain, referred to by others), so I don't think it can be argued any longer that the DP content is given UNDUE weight.

Thanks to TOAT for flagging the problems! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to add ... except ... we need to expand the lead (best left until there is consensus on the body). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That's very kind of you all. I've added a small bit to the lead, and a brief paragraph with a link on the history of its taxonomy over at Mayfly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

If most of the sources cover a single publication rather than their author, why not move the article to the name of the publication and rewrite accordingly? Then any appearance of coatrack or bias would disappear. (t · c) buidhe 04:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting idea. ALL the DP sources concern exactly one publication. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest "appearance of coatrack or bias" has already disappeared (by virtue of CC finding and adding biographical info). TOAT suggests above that the "paper itself isn't important enough to have its own article"; I agree. I'd compare the case more to something like Samuel Johnson's retrospective diagnosis of Tourette syndrome being made based on the strength of Boswell's writings about him; in this case, her own writings establish the retrospective diagnosis. The only thing that makes the paper itself notable relates to Traver and how she got the paper published, somewhat outside of publishing norms according to sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Another way to address WP:BIO1E issues in this case would be simply a merge to delusional parasitosis (t · c) buidhe 01:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess you mean just the DP section here, as the distinguished career in ephemeropterology is separately notable. But BIO1E does not apply to sections. Traver is notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The paper has had multiple books and articles, aka Reliable Sources, published all about it. Those sources focus exclusively on the paper, paying no attention at all to any of Traver's other works. They are all arguably non-scientific as it is impossible to verify a psychiatric diagnosis on a dead patient, but I'm not sure that would disqualify them as sources. They certainly do not pass WP:MEDRS, which is the applicable standard for medical claims, so their usability on Wikipedia must hang on the non-medical aspects, such as the circumstances around the publication of Traver's paper. To be clear, then, either the sources alleging Traver's DP are Reliable Sources and an article is possible, or the sources are unreliable and the material should be removed both from here and from Delusional parasitosis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)