Jump to content

Talk:Andrea James

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarionTheLibrarian (talk | contribs) at 14:05, 5 July 2008 (→‎Proposal 1: grammar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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)[reply]

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]
Yes of course "trashed" is POV; I think it's appropriate that we express our assessment of the content issues here; NPOV applies in article space, not here. As to "appears to accept", see the comments that I had left on the talk page. Nobody but you brought up the question of whether the quoted words were from her; that's not at issue. Dicklyon (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Two points:
  • User:BarbaraSue is now blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of an editor previous blocked indefinitely for vandalizing this biography similarly to what she has been doing in this dispute.
  • With respect to the Andrea James's private email that BarbaraSue was quoting out of context from what Dreger quoted out of context, BarbaraSue had said that "James has herself published the complete email with commentary". Now, I looked it up (here) and it turns out she published it only AFTER Dreger's out-of-context publication, and blasted Dreger for that, providing the complete context to counter to implications of the quote. If the subject of this article blasted Dreger for it, and BarbaraSue obviously knew that, then it seems inappropriate to leave any of what she did in the article.

So, can we unblock and fix it? Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will unprotect the article now, since the user that was warring with you was blocked (by me, I'm sorry I forgot about this article). I'm going to keep a close watch on this article because of the Mediation, and will not hesitate to protect again if need be. -MBK004 04:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In the spirit of the Lynn Conway mediation, I've removed the excessive discussion of the controversy that has its own page, and left just one link for the subject's viewpoint and one for the other side. I re-worded it a wee bit; please let me know if you agree that this is more balanced and essentially demanded by WP:BLP. Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consideration of Andrea James' 1998 autogynephilia confession

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)[reply]

  • I have no ties to anyone involved in this matter. That said, I'm concerned with using emails as sources. If it was written by the subject, posted in a public, verifiable way by the subject, and only addressed issues about the subject, then it might be acceptable as a primary source. But it deals with other living persons. As a source for information about a 3rd-party it is inadequate. Regardless of WP:BLP, it is also used inappropriately as a primary source, in that interpretation is required. For those reasons I think that this source, and any sources like it, should not be used. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt its relevant for this article, particularly given the lack of a reliable source attesting to its origin. I assume this talkpage is on her watchlist, so perhaps she'll weigh in. I imagine she'll object, at which point I think the revision containing the above post should be deleted from the talkpage history per WP:BLP. Avruch 18:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This WP:SPA is trying to bring their off-wiki trolling here by cross-posting this same post across multiple talk pages. I imagine a checkuser will turn up some sockpuppetry and that this editor will be banned in short order. For the record, I don't think it's especially relevant and feel it's cross-posted not to be placed in any articles, but to be a backhanded WP:BLP violation throughout Wikipedia. I address this appendix to a footnote of a larger controversy offsite. Unfortunately, this is the best they can do to discredit me, so they keep flogging away. I'd love to see other experienced editors remove all four instances of the same trolling from the talk pages. Anyone that interested in the mind-numbing minutiae of this controversy can find it offsite. Jokestress (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The new editor who triple-posted this section may be a proud autogynephile, or may just want to suggest that, but its claim that it can do NPOV edits seems to be contradicted by the very POV title of this section. Enough said. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Proposal 1

One section of TS Roadmap criticizes the controversial work of psychology professor J. Michael Bailey and of Ray Blanchard and others describing this work, especially Blanchard's theory of autogynephilia, as scientifically unsound, outdated, and defaming of transsexual people.[1] Bailey denies this characterization of his work and has provided his own account of the controversy.[2] After James began her campaign against Blanchard and Bailey, an email surfaced indicating that in 1998 she had endorsed some of Blanchard's ideas as "brilliant" and considered herself to be autogynephilic.[3]. James has characterized her earlier views as a "simplistic trap of categorization" due to inadequate understanding of Blanchard's ideas and their implications.[4]ProudAGP (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • To my eye, the relevant quote retains all of the context and meaning that appears in James' original email. If there is something lost, no one has said what it was. (Claims about context look to me to be a generic excuse to reject a statement that reflects poorly on a friend of a friend of Dicklyon's.)
  • Second, James' own website certainly can be cited as a primary source to her own email instead of Dreger's quotation of the same text (as I pointed out already).
  • Third, there is no WP policy about not quoting whom Dicklyon deems an "enemy." As Andrea James has said to me, it is the edit that needs to be neutral. If there is something about ProudAGP's quote that is not neutral, no one has said what it is. (Again, it looks to me to be a generic excuse to reject a statement that reflects poorly on a friend of a friend.)
  • Moreover, there are sources that WP deems reliable, and there are sources that Dicklyon deems reliable. Dreger's article is a reliable source so far as WP is concerned, and Dicklyon's opinion about it is irrelevant.
  • Finally, ProudAGP's quote even includes a very fair indication of James' response to the apparent contradiction.

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)[reply]

Reliably-sourced version

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrea_James&oldid=223729106"