Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Homosexual transsexual/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homosexual transsexual

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. Substantial work on the article is proposed. Once this stabilizes, the article can be renominated. Geometry guy 18:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article for Featured Article status. Then based on concerns raised during featured article review I rewrote reorganized and expanded the article. The complaints were that the prose is too dense (i.e. using various on line readability test the article required a 16th or even 27th grade education to understand it.), that it may not be comprehensive enough. After the overhaul I have given this article it is very possible that this is no longer a good article in the opinion of uninvolved editors. I still think this is a good article. I would like to know from uninvolved editors (NOT James_Cantor or Jokestress) what they think of the quality of this article. Can you understand what it is about etc?--Hfarmer (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - You might find it useful to notify WP:LGBT to give their opinions? At a glance, I feel that the article falls down by overusing jargon and probably can't be fixed within the time of this review. Please feel free to prove me wrong, though. ;) "Easter egg" Piped links like [[Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy|controversial]] (there are probably a few others in the article) are considered unintuitive to readers. I find it difficult to understand "opposite their own subconscious sense of their own sex." It seems like it could be made more succinct. I am surprised that Transsexual sexuality is merely a see also - as it seems that a "homosexual transsexual" is an expression of transsexual sexuality, I'd imagine that it should be linked earlier in the article. I hope this helps. -Malkinann (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will take that under advisement. I try to keep the really abstract jargon to a minimum but a certain editor seems to think that archane jargon makes it less offensive... Which it kind of does. Let me put it this way... I would never think that this should be in the artilcle. To state very simply what a homosexual transsexual is one could write. "A MTF homosexual transsexual is a transsexual who was a extreme sissy as a boy who grows up to be a transsexual who makes a feminine woman and is attracted to and attractive to men." Simmilar language got someone in big trouble. That is part of why so much jargon is present. As for sussicnt ness. A "featured article " reviwer said that the article was too short and the prose too dense. I have noticed that the readability grade levels go up (meaning the article is less readable) as the article is made more susicnt. The article used to be less than 1000 words. It had a 27th grade reading level. Now as long as it is it has a 13th grade reading level. (I would like to bring that down to 10th grade or less). Though I see where you are comming from we are writing a encyclopedia article not righting great wrongs. Perhaps short and simple is the way to go? But how to do that and be the kind of comprehensive article that the featured article people said it would need to be? :-?--Hfarmer (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like there's a bit of a content dispute. Jargon can be used quite effectively in order to remove embarrassment about writing on sexual topics, but also WP:JARGON is one of the style guidelines that is compulsory for WP:WIAGA, so I suggest that you discuss this with the other people who regularly maintain the article to achieve some sort of a middle ground. There's no need to try to make it overly simplistic for the readers. The article's grammar is a bit off in places, so a thorough copyedit would be good. Perhaps there's been a misunderstanding with my use of the word succinct - it means that you say what you mean, in as few words as possible. Good articles must be broad in their content - comprehensiveness is not really to do with how many words you use to get your content across, but in how well your words cover the content. However, a small article indicates that there may be some gaps in the content. Are all aspects of the topic addressed? Good articles do not have to be "complete", as an A-class article does, or "comprehensive" as a FA does. --Malkinann (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The work so far only seems to have gotten to the point that a complete rewrite is the next step. As such i don't think it is stable, and after such extensive changed a new GAN would be preferable.Yobmod (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
That's false. First of all look at the pre2003 controversy section I wrote. I summarize with due weighting all of the criticisms that existed before 2003. Jokestress would prefers many many very long block quotes which give undue weight to some authors simply due to their long windedness.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it divided into pre-2003 and post-2003? --Malkinann (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In 2003 a book was released that changed a phrase that was unpopular and a phenomena that was undenied into a raging controversy which had this as a buzzword. "The Man Who Would Be Queen". Since then the response this word got went form mild offense at worse to white hot rage towards anyone who either used the word or who unknowlingly described themselves in terms even vaguely congruous with it's definition.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, the book popularised the use of the term "homosexual transsexual"? I guess that might go a long way to explaining why the pre-2003 section is as long as the post-2003 section - people didn't really know of the term until then? --Malkinann (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
he he Well I don't know how "popular" it is. But in the sense that it became well known to allot more people after this book yeah. If anything it made the phrase taboo in some circles. There were online boards where if a young transwoman logged in and talked about troubles with boys or school she would be verbally attacked. Where before she might have been told how lucky she was to an uncomfortable extent. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useful comments from the talk page

[edit]
I'm quite calm - no worries. I think the article should explain which sexologists - sounds like it was a select group or a minority opinion? That may help explain what's going on. The lede would also do well to explain who finds it controversial. That it's a term applied to transsexual people and not used as a self-identifier would also help. The lede (per wp:lede) should stand alone as an article explaining the overview summing up the major points and serving the reader to understand why the topic is notable as well as a summary of criticism. The rest of the article, once reworked and cleaned-up, then expands and drills down into details. It may help to look at beefing up the lede more even if the rest of the article is still being worked on. -- Banjeboi 00:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all good suggestions. I will work on them over the weekend. It won't be easy to make a leade that is simply worded, brief, but self complete, that is not so simply worded that it is crude, yet the language only requires a 10th or 12th grade level education to understand. Oh boy. If I can do it all of this will be a good article indeed!--Hfarmer (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please note that an informal mediation request has been filed on this article. --Malkinann (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The first thing that struck me when I read the article was that the lead left me completely unprepared for what followed. There are wording, neutrality and encyclopedic prose issues throughout. I went to the talk page after going through the article, and I see that article editors may not be in a frame of mind to resolve these issues right now. I hope the mediation is helpful, and recommend renomination once agreement is reached over the balance of the article. I have to say, I'm sympathetic to both points of view, and think that the editors have just got wrapped up in conflict. Geometry guy 21:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please specify just what you mean by un prepared? What hit you unexpectedly about the article? This will help me to address your concerns.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first section, to start with, which is probably undue weight to a single author, and not covered in the lead. But the last section was just as problematic. I can't comment in detail now. In the meantime, check my contribution slice to this article for ideas. Geometry guy 23:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm beginning to feel like this article could have words to avoid - especially in regards to ambiguity and that the term "homosexual transsexual" itself is considered offensive. The article also appears to make Wikipedia agree with the theories, rather than presenting them (esp. in terms of older, non-Western cultural groups that have been said to be analogous to the "homosexual transsexual" class). --Malkinann (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure it has many words to avoid and so called weasel words but in this case many of them are needed. For exaple. let's talk about Dr. Blanchard's theory. Citing a paper either for it or against it means citing a paper that is often by three or four researchers. Should we ennumerate each one of them everytime such a paper is quoted? Or if the authors of a paper say "we note that blah blah blah..." Should we then leave out of the quote or paraphrase the word noted? What should we put there? A reliable source noted it in their research.
As for the alleged uncritical agreement with Dr. Blanchard's theory. Please see the controversy section I wrote where I summarized all of the criticisms. This is a term which existed and is on record long before Blanchard or Bailey were ever born. Can you suggest what could be done aside from some reasonable expansion to that section to make this less like it is agreeing with Dr. Blanchard's theory? Beware that the first paragraph as I wrote it, refering to this as a class of people, is based on the way this word and it's synonyms are used in scientific literature, and numerous numerous US immigration assylum cases which are essentially based on "homosexual males with female gender identities" being a class of person defined by immutable qualities. I suppose we could talk about the primarily trans and homophobic nature of most objections to that court ruling (i.e. the fear that a huge wave of LGBT people would seek assylum in the US due to it.) --Hfarmer (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The words to avoid guideline and the weasel words guideline are separate. The words to avoid guideline is compulsary for GA, the weasel words guideline is not. In regards to weasel words, it may be appropriate to say that "some say" in the lead, but who says and when should be expanded upon in the article. It is not Dr Blanchard's theory I am suggesting the article completely agrees with. It is Richard Green's. I feel it would be more neutral to say that "Richard Green identifies the kathoey, hijira, etc. as being analogous to homosexual transsexuality because they exhibit traits x, y, z." and to remove the bulk of the current "History" section. If someone is really interested in the kathoey, they will go to the kathoey article. It gives Green undue weight, as most of the citations in that section are describing the cultural groups, rather than describing them in the context of homosexual transsexuality. If the reader doesn't realise this, it seems that more people than Green regard these peoples as being examples of homosexual transsexuality. --Malkinann (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see any case for keeping this GAR open. The current article doesn't meet the criteria and is unstable. I intend to close as delist shortly unless objections are raised (or someone else closes it first!). Geometry guy 21:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Homosexual_transsexual/1&oldid=1138522435"