Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-15 Homosexual transsexual

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Homosexual transsexual
Status	Open
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	Opening

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active 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

Who are the involved parties?

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?

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?

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

• 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)

Discussion

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 have created this article to act as an umbrella for articles that deal with issues of transsexual and transgender sexuality."

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)