![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Ms. Andrea left a few links to articles about her on my talk page, which I'll add here, for anybody else who wants to do some editing (since this article currently needs LOTS of editing... :) :
And I'll keep at it myself, of course. -- Wwagner 06:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Can someone research this issue about Andrea posting photos of Michael Bailey's children (author of The Man Who Would Be Queen) and making untoward comments about the children on her website back in 2003? I keep seeing this claim being brought up by self-identified autogynephilic transsexuals. Then again, Bailey *did* make disparaging comments about transsexual women, bisexuals, women in general, and gender variant children. I think her intent was to "hit too close to home," sorta speak, to get him to realize that his disparaging remarks are personal and hurtful. A tit for tat. This issue definitely needs to be addressed in the article. Perform a search on her website using the word 'children.' -- WiccaIrish 06:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Andrea James wrote about that issue here:
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-children.html. In it she apologized for doing that and she also reported tha she apologized to Bailey's children for that incident.
Bailey's children deny that James ever apologized to them, and James certainly never apologized to Bailey, at least publicly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BarbaraSue ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have fully protected this article until all issues are worked out regarding this MedCom case which has spilled over to this article. Please use the {{ editprotected}} template to request uncontroversial edits in the meantime. - MBK 004 00:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, Dicklyon, let me proceed in the spirt we should start, with the assumption that you, like me, want an unbiased and fair but accurate (bad with the good) page on Andrea James. It would help toward a comprise solution (and perhaps inform the mediator) if you could identify particular assertions in Alice Dreger's history that are clearly inaccurate. It is a very long history with lots of assertions, so there are lots of opportunities for you to identify mistakes. Also perhaps you could show how the quote of Andrea James somehow misrepresents her beliefs in 1998. Or perhaps you can present a good argument why the contradiction between those words and her public position should be suppressed for the sake of accuracy. Specifics, rather than vague and general accusations about "enemies" and "trashing" would be most helpful. I think we should have future discussions about the Andrea James page here rather than at my page. BarbaraSue ( talk) 03:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So, can we unblock and fix it? Dicklyon ( talk) 06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to know what other editors think about the inclusion of material concerning a remarkable 1998 email from Andrea James to Anne Lawrence. The email is here, with commentary from James who tries to show that it doesn't mean what Alice Dreger suggests it means:
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/alice-dreger/hermaphrodite-monger.html#appendix1
In this email, James says that she has found many of Ray Blanchard's scientific insights "valid, even brilliant, especially in distinguishing early- and late- transitioning TS patterns of thought and behavior." Recall that Blanchard is the originator of the scientific theory of transsexualism that James has so assiduously decried. Furthermore, she says: "I readily admit my own autogynephilia." When i first read this, I found these to be explosive admissions. After all, James has dedicated a good part of her time and reputation to trying to destroy J. Michael Bailey for promoting this theory in his book. (The title of the relevant part of her website is: "Categorically Wrong.") Bailey's account of the controversy is that it was a smear campaign waged by unprincipled liars. (Lest anyone accuse me of being inflammatory, the accusations that Conway, James and others have made against Bailey are just as bad.) The contrast between James' 1998 email and her later anti-Bailey and Blanchard campaign surely is consistent with this interpretation. Moreover, it is relevant to the contention that autogynephilia is not consistent with many transsexual women's experience. If it is consistent with the experience of the concept's most vociferous critic, that makes the contention less credible.
This material was mentioned in an earlier version of the Autogynephilia page, but Dicklyon removed it, saying that it was taken out of context. Frankly, I do not find Dicklyon's objection (or Andrea James' objections as related on the above website) at all plausible at negating the obvious facts that she once found Blanchard's theory to be of great interest and she once agreed that she is autogynephilic. Dicklyon has admitted that he has ties with Lynn Conway, but I am sure that he does not want anyone to think that's a primary reason for his edits. Perhaps other editors can weigh in on whether they think there is any other way to read James' 1998 email other than how I read it, and whether they think it is relevant for inclusion in various articles. I think it could be considered for Andrea James, J. Michael Bailey, Autogynephilia, The Man Who Would Be Queen, and BBL controversy. ProudAGP ( talk) 15:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I have had no shortage of interactions with Jokestress (or Dicklyon) on WP, but, personally, I think the material is both permissible and relevant. The email was written by the subject herself, is posted in a public, verifiable way (James' own personal website), and can indeed be used to refer only to what James herself thinks of (or thought) autogynephilia. Thus, it appears (to me) to meet all the criteria outlined by user:WellBeBack. Moreover, the relevant portions of James' email are also contained in a review of the entire controversy by Alice Dreger, which was published in a high-end, peer-reviewed journal. Dreger is a professional bioethicist with a PhD in history, who studies sexuality and identity politics. So, she would seem (to me) to be clearly qualified to assess primary sources on the subject. Thus, James' email can be cited as a primary RS, or Dreger can be cited as a secondary RS.
With regard to relevance, James' involvement in the autogynephilia controversy has been reported even in the New York Times. That would make her comments about the topic about as relevant as can be.
Although I am sure Jokestress will be happy to comment, I don't see how it's relevant; few people would suport sharing evidence of their own double-speak. Speaking of double-speak, if anyone wants to see Jokestress real beliefs about "trolling here by cross-posting this same post across multiple talk pages," see her own recent cross-postings of the same (misleading) material on
conversion therapy,
Kenneth Zucker, and
Susan Bradley.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
20:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The sociopolitical climate among some trans-activists has made it difficult for people who experience autogynephilia to say so, even among other people who experience the same thing; however, I do know many people who remain unintimidated.
That said, the proof of the edit is in the tasting, and ProudAGP did ask for input before editing the actual page. Whether ProudAGP can produce an NPOV edit will certainly become clear soon enough.
However, I would ask to you, ProudAGP, that you post to this talk page the actual text you have in mind. That way Dicklyon (and I) can give feedback without tempting an edit war on this already unstable page (Dicklyon and I have previously agreed not to edit the portions of this page that deal with the topic).
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
21:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize for my multiple posting, if that is against WP policy. I assure you that I was not "trolling" but trying to get the opinion of potentially interested editors. Furthermore, I suspect that the best proposals about this matter (including the issue of whether or not to include this material in the article) will vary by the article. I am just learning WP editing, and if anyone wants to tell me what I should have done, please feel free. I am not sure why Dicklyon thinks my title is NPOV, but if he wants to suggest an alternative, we can surely consider it. (Perhaps I should have said "Admission" rather than "Confession," since that is more consistent with Andrea James' own words?) Since we're on the Andrea James page, I am going to start with a proposal for that page. Can someone tell me given current circumstances, should I also vet my other related proposals (for example, for Autogynephilia) here or on those other pages? At any rate, here's a try, incorporating current material from the relevant paragraph:
Where's the reliable source? The subject Andread James already went to the trouble to publish the full email in order to refute the out-of-context quotation and interpretation of the very biased Dreger ref. There are lots of things for which Dreger can be cited, but this attribution of ideas to James is not among them. You need to respect WP:BLP in not adding badly sourced controversial material especially when the subject objects to it. This is just another case of a controversy leakage too much into a bio. Keep the controversy on the controversy page, and don't use an enemy's interpretation of a priviate email in a bio. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
So, unless someone can show exactly what part of what WP policy is not being following in ProudAGP's proposal, it should be in.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
14:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
If there is no reason to exclude ProudAGP's proposal other than the observation that I support it, then ProudAGP's proposal is strong indeed. Being on opposite sides, we can debate whose opinion should be discounted until the cows come home. But, the side that should win out is the one that is consistent with WP policy, and (thus far) neither Dicklyon nor anyone else has shown ProundAGP's proposal to be anything other than relevant, neutral, and verifiable by a (WP-deemed)reliable source. My argument requires no reference to who likes what; it requires only that WP policy be followed.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
22:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that Proposal 1 does not adequately convey how far James went to attack Bailey, and importantly, it omits her webpage taking his children's pictures and calling his daughter, e.g., a "cock-starved exhibitionist," a page that was mentioned in the New York Times article about the controversy. Other things I think should/might be mentioned is a page attacking his former girlfriend (who was mentioned in the preface of Bailey's book), an email to Bailey's colleagues claiming that Bailey "suffers from alcohol abuse," and perhaps even her many edits of wikipedia pages about those related to Bailey or his book (e.g., Bailey's graduate school mentor, Simon LeVay, Bailey's own pages). I definitely think that all this belongs in the controversy page, and the book page, but what do people think about having it on James' biography page. All of these things are easily verifiable. I suppose that someone might complain that it gives undue weight to James' unflattering behavior, but it seems to me that that is a product of James' own choices and behavior. But what do other people think? I will offer a second proposal in a few days. ProudAGP ( talk) 22:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
While I am on the topic of my own article, the sourcing is pretty bad. I took a moment to correct a couple of minor errors and add reliable sources throughout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jokestress/Sandbox
I would appreciate if someone would paste this new version in. The only differences to speak of are the sourcing - I will let others determine the content. Thanks! Jokestress ( talk) 19:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'm rather confused. James said the sourcing on her bio page is pretty bad, but in the version she is asking to be inserted, there is still little or only misleading sourcing. For examples, neither the section on "early life" nor "transition" contain any references at all, and James claims that "The section of TS Roadmap on hair removal proved so popular that James spun it off into its own site, Hair Facts," but the reference provided contains no such statement. (It says only that "hair facts" exists and provides extensive advice on the topic.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
01:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This article contains several unsourced and poorly sourced claims. Jokestress/Andrea James' self-authored version is no better (it still contains unsourced and poorly sourced claims). I have marked the unsourced ones so that anyone interested might try to substantiate them. If after whatever time frame, no such sources can be identified, WP policy is simply to remove them. Moreover, including who performed James' surgeries and that she once thought she might become an English teacher (for examples) do no strike me as particularly encyclopedic.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk)
17:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
No one (not even Jokestress) has provided any sources to back-up the claims made in those sections, so I have deleted them. They can be re-added, of course, should RS's be forthcoming.
— James Cantor (
talk) (formerly,
MarionTheLibrarian)
12:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
If there were a source and evidence of notability, then I would agree; but neither were apparent. Should they surface in the future, then they can of course still be added.
— James Cantor (
talk) (formerly,
MarionTheLibrarian)
14:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough.
— James Cantor (
talk) (formerly,
MarionTheLibrarian)
00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions Andrea James's criticism of J. Michael Bailey and gives her website TS Roadmap as a source. I am wondering whether there is any reason why the article cannot state that James has also criticized Simon LeVay on TS Roadmap, and give it as a source for that too? Skoojal ( talk) 08:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
As I understand WP:SPS, Andrea James' website can be cited as an RS only on her own bio page and only as a source for describing her own thoughts. However, tsroadmap.com would not be an RS on J. Michael Bailey or on Simon LeVay. Conversely, Bailey's thoughts about James' attacks on him could use Bailey's personal website as an RS only on J. Michael Bailey, and LeVay's thoughts about James' attacks on him could use LeVay's personal website as an RS only on Simon LeVay. — James Cantor ( talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we are agreeing: The
Andrea James page may certainly describe Andrea James' thoughts about Bailey, Blanchard, or LeVay using tsroadmap as a source. I wanted to point out also (I apologize if I said it unclearly) that one could not put the same information about Andrea James' thoughts on any other page with tsroadmap as its source. At least, that is my understanding of WP:SPS.
— James Cantor (
talk) (formerly,
MarionTheLibrarian)
02:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Jokestress has just pointed on her talk page that, 'My criticism of LeVay (and his of me) is not notable - not covered in the press.' It's worth replying that, 'Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles', as per Wikipedia:Notability. Skoojal ( talk) 03:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have read some unreliable sources that she was born J#### E M###. Does anyone know if this is true? Fodient ( talk) 07:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
|birth_name = Andrea Jean James
{{ admin help}} Please RevDel this edit, which was missed in all the BLP clean-up. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)