Jump to content

Talk:Andrea James: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 35: Line 35:


:Seems reasonable. I had already proposed that the mediation scope include this article as well (and another bio that is getting similarly trashed with Dreger's negative assessments of the subject). [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 00:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
:Seems reasonable. I had already proposed that the mediation scope include this article as well (and another bio that is getting similarly trashed with Dreger's negative assessments of the subject). [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 00:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

:"Trashed" is POV, which even if allowed here is inaccurate. I am fine having mediation here (rather than continued quibbling with Dicklyon). One big difference with the Conway page is that the latest flurry of revisions (and Dicklyon's deletions) concern the subject's (Andrea James') actual words, and no one (not even she) has argued that these words are not hers. They essentially show that at one time she strongly favored a theory that she has become famous (or infamous) for attacking. That is certainly important. Furthermore, Dicklyon appeared to accept the most recent version of her quotation. (I disagree with Dicklyon that there are any important differences between the present version which he accepts and the prior version that he didn't, but the present version is fine with me too.)[[User:BarbaraSue|BarbaraSue]] ([[User talk:BarbaraSue|talk]]) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:12, 3 June 2008

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)[reply]

"Attacks" on Bailey's children

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)[reply]


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.

Protection

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. -MBK004 00:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. I had already proposed that the mediation scope include this article as well (and another bio that is getting similarly trashed with Dreger's negative assessments of the subject). Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Trashed" is POV, which even if allowed here is inaccurate. I am fine having mediation here (rather than continued quibbling with Dicklyon). One big difference with the Conway page is that the latest flurry of revisions (and Dicklyon's deletions) concern the subject's (Andrea James') actual words, and no one (not even she) has argued that these words are not hers. They essentially show that at one time she strongly favored a theory that she has become famous (or infamous) for attacking. That is certainly important. Furthermore, Dicklyon appeared to accept the most recent version of her quotation. (I disagree with Dicklyon that there are any important differences between the present version which he accepts and the prior version that he didn't, but the present version is fine with me too.)BarbaraSue (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]