Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-15 Homosexual transsexual
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Homosexual transsexual |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 03:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Jokestress (talk · contribs)WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) |
| Mediator(s) | Hereford (talk · contribs) |
| Comment | Closed due to this was based on Wikipedia:Idontlikeit. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Homosexual transsexual]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Homosexual transsexual]]
- Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!
Request details
[edit]Who are the involved parties?
[edit]Hontas Farmer Hfarmer (talk · contribs) off wiki webpage Andrea James Jokestress (talk · contribs) one of her many off wiki webpages Unknown WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
What's going on?
[edit]Andrea and I worked on this page over a year ago and made it into something that could pass a good article reassement. I revisited this article this year and tried at first to get it up to featured article status. When that failed I rewrote the article based on what the Featured article reviewers said then to ensure quality I listed it for good article reassessment.Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Homosexual transsexual/1 Since I did that Andrea James a.k.a Jokestress has been trying to get the article delisted as a good article, not based on any failure to meet good aritlce criteria but based on whatever problems she may have with me. i.e. "Comment: This article is no longer a good article, because Hfarmer has removed all the published sources explaining why the term is controversial. It's all part of Hfarmer's attempt to make this article about Hfarmer. This is, in fact, one of the worst, most unbalanced articles about trans issues on Wikipedia. Jokestress (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)" and "Um, Hfarmer has discussed entering Dr. McCloskey's home without her knowledge and boasts about Dr. Wyndzen "I have almost figured out her name" above. No BLP. Just reviewing Hfarmer's own statements. Jokestress (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC) " In response to these personal attackes I have responded with "More hyperbolic statements from AJ surprise surprise. History shows how she reacts to being opposed. Right now I am amused by this little internet tussle and remain neutral. But be warned this is what I do to my enemies (figuratively speaking of course :-) )don't cross the line from internet fun into real life personal attacks."
What we were supposed to be talking about. Is "homosexual transsexual" just a term, or is it a phenomena. WhatamIdoing agreed with me that this is a pehnomena. 2:1 is not a really durable consensus though. I then requested comments. Two editors responded users Malkinann (talk · contribs) Benjiboi (talk · contribs) commented constructively. They also seemed to agree on this being a phenomena, and made other comments and did some tagging. Meanwhile Jokestress moved on and asserted that I have removed all of the criticism from this article. She specifically wants a very long quote by Bruce Bagemihl included in it's entirety. Users Malkinann, and WhatamIdoing agreed with me that having a section compsed of long long quotes would not make a whole lot of sense. She continues to press for the inclusion of that quote.
What would you like to change about that?
[edit]I would like for Adrea James to have to respect the rules of the Wikipedia for consensus, and civility. I have worked to find consensus on everything to do with this article. I have written, and many have helped to copy edit an article, homosexual transsexual that has at least one citation for each and every sentence. Yet Andrea James personally attacks me saying that I am trying to "redefine" this term to include myself. Multiple editors have disagreed with her on this topic. Yet and still she persist. Wikipedia works based on good will and consensus building. I would like it if Andrea James would be gently reminded that even she has to obey those rules.
What I would like done is for Andrea to be brought to the table to negotiation. What does she want that hasn't already been decided by consensus? What can we do within reason to accommodate her. In short I want this NPOV dispute resolved in a way that is in accord with the cited sources of information, and Wikipedia's policies of consensus and civility. --Hfarmer (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Mediator notes
[edit]- the link the link that links to a youtube video of a nuclear bomb exploding is very uncivil.[[[User Talk:Hereford|Hereford ]] 00:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- im going to bed (i.e. not active till about 6 pm EST.) Hereford 00:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- A article about a sensitive subject should allow all materiel (pro and con) that is constructive in it. So in Conclusion i'm closing this case because the medcab request was based on WP:Idontlikeit.Hereford 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Administrative notes
[edit]Discussion
[edit]One, Hfhammer that youtube video can be considered a threat.And could you add edit links.Hereford 23:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- :-? Perhaps if I was the president of Russia and had a full nuclear triad (Bombers ICBM's and Subs) at my disposal. Do you not see the word "figuratively" which I used in the original text. A definition 2 a: expressing one thing in terms normally denoting another with which it may be regarded as analogous.-Websters Dictionary. I.e. I was saying that if she came after me in real life I would sue. But doing it in a relatively civil way. I mean which sounds more civil? "I'll Nuke you" (Which is obviously impossible.) or "Ill sue you" (Which is all too easy. by the by If you have ever been in litigation you know Thermonuclear war is preferable. It's over allot faster. (Again tongue in cheek.)) --Hfarmer (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Besides that, can you add edit links?Hereford 00:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would but I am not sure what you mean? Do you mean like next to a section or subsection? --Hfarmer (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Like this. it is the url to the diff in the edit.Hereford 00:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok now my next question is that do you mean for me to make the links I have already given above into the type you want?--Hfarmer (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Note:Ive asked Jokestress to comment.Hereford 00:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The term "homosexual transsexual" merits an article because the term itself is notable for being problematic. The term "homosexual" has been a source of controversy when applied to transsexual people since the earliest literature. The model for this article should be other controversial terms, like moron. We would not use "moron" for the article title to discuss the phenomenon of mental retardation, because "moron" is a controversial term. Moron should have an article discussing the history of the term, but it should not be about the phenomenon. Transsexual people as a group vehemently oppose the term "homosexual transsexual" and its pejorative baggage. That's why there is consensus for the main article to be transsexual sexuality, an article started by Hfarmer:
I agreed with that decision then and now. That article has always been and should remain the umbrella article for issues of transsexual and transgender sexuality. That article should link to homosexual transsexual and summarize the controversy surrounding the term. Homosexual transsexual is a very confusing term, which is why it never caught on. This article should discuss the history of the term and why it is a problem. Jokestress (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Doing what you wish would go against the opinion of not only myself, but of whatamIdoing. The little historical parapgraphs (a few sentences each) hardly comprises trying to create a "umbrella article". The term is problematic and such. But from multiple reviews it seems that the article we have written about it is even more confusing. Some people used to come away with all kinds of impressions. Like not even realizing it was related to transwomen. Seriously look at the ga review and the previous featured article review. Providing that context has cured that. Last don't try to make it sound like the PC gender terminology is any less confusing to the average joe. i.e. A week ago a talk show host on a loal Am station talked about the Pregnant man. He, his news reporter and his traffic reporter were utterly confused by the terminology and concepts that they found in relation to that. Almost all gleaned from sources that I am sure jokestress, and I would think are crystal clear. We must remember these articles are not written for other LGBT people they are written for those who are totally uninitiated. The article could be summed up with a sentence Various psychologist theorize that some transsexuals exhibit an extreme form of whatever causes homosexuality. This is problematic because it goes against the standard women trapped in mens bodies cliche. I think people will understand that if that were in there. But I don't think AJ would let it stay for long. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes this article has the history of the term. But the article is mostly about the The term and how its used, and the description of the term. So far the dispute seems likeits a case of i dont like it and I like it. So is there proof that there article is just about a umbrella term or how its not? Hereford 02:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Right on the nose. This is really all about how much AJ does not like this term or how it's used. However the term is just the latest name given to a phenomena. This by any other name would be just the same.
- I can present evidence that this is just a new name for an old phenomena. The person who coined the term was a psychologist named Magnus hirschfeld in 1948. Ray Blanchard who used this term in his theory of two types of transsexual, the context in which jokestress would like to see this article, credits Hirschfeld with that coinage. "Hirschfeld labeled these types the same way that he labeled non-transsexual individuals, that is, according to their biological sex. Thus, in Hirschfeld’s terminology, a male-to-female transsexual who was erotically attracted to men would be labeled a homosexual transsexual." The term autogynephilia was coined by blanchard but I am sure that If I looked just a bit I could find simmilar historical accounts which would fit the description of autogynephilia. I can think of examples from Feudal Japan, and the Roman Imperial lines which could fit that description. Hmmm.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- First off, it would be pretty hard for Magnus Hirschfeld to coin a term in 1948, since he died in 1935. As far as WP:Idontlikeit, yes, Hfarmer wants the article to suggest that this term is scientifically valid and has consistently removed criticism and has attempted to add sources and images to bolster this claim. Many are similar in quality to Hfarmer's claim above about Hirschfeld's activities in 1948. Hfarmer doesn't like that this article is shifting to a more balanced treatment of the topic that does not assert Hfarmer's POV. However, there are several new editors involved since Hfarmer opened this request, so I'm not sure what else needs to be resolved here. The article is being discussed and changes are being implemented based on consensus. I move that this case be closed. Jokestress (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes this article has the history of the term. But the article is mostly about the The term and how its used, and the description of the term. So far the dispute seems likeits a case of i dont like it and I like it. So is there proof that there article is just about a umbrella term or how its not? Hereford 02:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
That just means either my source is mistaken about the date. OR and this is likely the book was published in English in 1948. The term was not coined by Blanchard. As for the phenomena hood of this here is an interesting tidbit. In a news story about TG's from latin America seeking asylum a court case is mentioned. In immigration law there exist due to a court case the following category. "in a landmark ruling in 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals paved the way for transgender claims by recognizing "gay men with female sexual identities" as a group eligible for protection." -Border Crossers by SFtimes.com That sounds like a phenomena, a protected class of people under US Federal case law. Not just a term. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)