Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-16 Mother insult

Who are the involved parties?
Rlsheehan, Chaser, Dgies

What is the involved article(s)?
Mother insult and to a lesser extent, the dozens

What's going on?
We are unable to resolve questions of sexist bias and lack of balance.

What would you like to change about that?
We need assistance to help draft a section to allow minimal balance

Mediator response
All three parties have agreed to let me mediate this case  .The problem seems to arise from the use of "crude" to describe the phrase and the insert "These jokes are often sexist and degrade women." With RIsheehan wanting the phrases in, and  Chaser and  Dgies wanted to remove the phrases because the word "crude" is POV, and there is a lack of proof the a joke about someone's mother is inherently sexist.

I can see a couple of problems. Firstly, the word "crude" is POV, but does accurately decribe the insults. Secondly Wikipedia's page on sexism has citation tags on, and some of the sources are rather dubious and most of the article is bordering on OR.

What I propose it the following; the word "crude" should not be added to the article, it is a weasel word, and the nature of the jokes can be judged by the reader. Also the disclaimer about the jokes being sexist should be added back in, but only once a credible source on sexism is found, and it should be noted that none of the links at the bottom of the Wikipedia Sexism page are suitable.

Any further comments are welcomed at my talk page.


 * I'm satisfied with this proposal. Darren, thanks for your hard work in drafting it.--Chaser - T 16:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your solution sounds acceptable. &mdash;dgies tc 16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that "crude" should not be used. Also, a scholarly reference to these being "sexist" is not readily available.  The caution that these jokes may offend people who do respect mothers seems to be valid and referenced and should be added in some form.  Rlsheehan

Well now all three have responded I will ask that RIsheehan puts forward a proposed version of the text that will be included and then I will amend it (if needed) and try to elicit agreement from Chaser and Dgies so that all three will be happy with the reference to sexism that will be added. Darrenhusted 19:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I'm not agreeing that a "reference to sexism" should be added. I'm looking for a reference establishing sexism.  &mdash;dgies tc 21:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Same as Dgies. This needs a source.--Chaser - T 21:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's try something like this in a cautionary section:
 * Some of this humor has the potential to offend. There are traditions in segments of society that mothers should be honored. This might be based on the ten commandments of the Bible, similar sections of the Qur'an, or broader aspects of filial piety.
 * Rlsheehan

OK, we have a start, I'm going to simplify it a bit:
 * Some of this humor has the potential to offend. In some segments of society there is a strong sense that mothers should be honored, this is particularly true with those from religious backgrounds.

Comments are welcomed. Darrenhusted 22:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept that insulting mothers clashes with notions of filial piety. What I don't see is a source indicating that anyone finds these jokes offensive for that reason. Without a source indicating that, I will continue to oppose inclusion of this idea (in whatever wording) in the article. WP:V isn't negotiable.--Chaser - T 23:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but if I can source the statement then would you be happy with the above wording? Darrenhusted 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Good luck.--Chaser - T 02:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do these sites work?


 * []
 * []
 * []
 * Rlsheehan
 * Not really. Please see Reliable sources.  Even if those qualified under that guideline, they're really only useful for cataloging jokes, not establishing if they are sexist or not.  &mdash;dgies tc 06:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * With Chaser's agreement I need Dgies and RIsheehan to agree to the above text, then I will find reliable sources for it. Darrenhusted 12:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with the proposed text. The three web sites I listed all caution readers that these jokes can be offensive.  The WK articles on mother insults should also.  Some minimal balance is required.  Rlsheehan

Good, OK once I have Dgies agreement then I will look for sources. Darrenhusted 13:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Yo Momma" jokes are dealt with in The dozens. It's not necessary to mention it's offensive in Mother insult because the page title itself includes the word "insult".  If you want to explain that filial piety is why insults to someone's mother are offensive that is reasonable, but just saying that it's offensive, is such a statement of the obvious I can't see any value in including it. This whole brouhaha was started over the inclusion of two unsourced statements: that insulting someone's mother is "crude", and that it is "sexist".  I still haven't seen anything that would qualify as a reliable source to establish these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgies (talk • contribs)


 * OK, but we already have agreement from all three that "crude" will not be added in. What I am trying work out is an acceptable substitute for the "these jokes are sexist" sentence. So, Chaser and RIsheehan agree with the sentence:


 * Some of this humor has the potential to offend. In some segments of society there is a strong sense that mothers should be honored, this is particularly true with those from religious backgrounds.

If I can find a source that clarifies sexism, Dgies, would you be happy with that sentence, or do you have a rewrite you would like to suggest? Darrenhusted 01:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This has become completely inactive. Can we close it?--Chaser - T 01:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the resolution? I had agreed with a compromise text in June.  Rlsheehan Aug 14, 07


 * Despite concerted searches, no sources have been found supporting the addition you suggest. The resolution is that the article won't have that section claiming the jokes are sexist, etc.--Chaser - T 03:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The agreed upon statement did not indicate "sexist". It was: "Some of this humor has the potential to offend. In some segments of society there is a strong sense that mothers should be honored, this is particularly true with those from religious backgrounds."  Yes, there is documentation about honoring mothers.  Rlsheehan  Aug 15, 07


 * We've been round and round this. I'm not mediating it anymore. You have neither sources for this claim, nor consensus.--Chaser - T 03:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I was actually waiting for dgies to agree to the text so sources could be sought and added, but if all parties are happy with the article as it stands and feels this dispute has been resolved then I am happy for it to be closed. Darrenhusted 16:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands lacks balance without some sort of statement such as the compromise statement offered. I will not take this question any further.  Rlsheehan Aug 19, 07


 * Sorry for not responding, I haven't' been checking my watchlist. Yes, I can agree with the sentence "Some of this humor has the potential to offend. In some segments of society there is a strong sense that mothers should be honored, this is particularly true with those from religious backgrounds."  Any allegations of sexism will still need a source.  &mdash;dgies tc 17:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well now all three involved agree on the text I will find a reference to put to the end of it. Once I have found one I will repost the sentence here with inline cites and ask that all three agree to the sources, then it can be aded to the article. Darrenhusted 20:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)