Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-02/Lynette Nusbacher

Where is the dispute?
Lynette Nusbacher

Who is involved?

 * User:NetNus
 * User:fdewaele

What is the dispute?
Lynette Nussbacher, previously Aryeh Nussbacher, has been the target of continued deleting and editing attempts of User:NetNus. NetNus failed in a previous deletion attempt as the subject was deemed notable enough as a military expert and adviser in many tv programs. NetNus keeps deleting information about the fact that the person who is the topic of the article has undergone a sex change operation. There is however a source for this information: in 2007 The Sun reported that Nusbacher had undergone a male to female sex change operation: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article27762.ece

The sex (change) of a person is a fundamental part of who they are and must be included in it.

What would you like to change about this?
The sex (change) of a person is a fundamental part of who they are and must be included in it. Keep the sourced information of the sex change operation included in the article.

How do you think we can help?
Resolve the conflict whether a gender change operation of a person, deemed notable enough to merit an article, should be included in the article.

Administrative notes
Hi; I'd like to mediate this case, if you're all happy with that...? Are any other editors involved? I had a quick look on the article history and didn't see much. bobrayner (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no opposition to you mediating this dispute. After all, we need a mediator, otherwise I wouldn't have put in a request. :-) -- fdewaele, 21 February 2011, 11:42 CET.
 * Awaiting a response from User:NetNus; I just sent a reminder. bobrayner (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Any response from NetNus yet? It's a pity (s)he seems more interested in just editing the article to confirm to his/er view, than to equitably resolve this question... - fdewaele, 21 March 2011, 18:48 (CET)
 * No apparent response yet. However, I'd suggest that it's not helpful to snipe at people like that. They're not an active wikipedian; they've only made two edits since, one of which reintroduced the earlier name in a different part of the article. And you have edited in the meantime too; pushing your preferred version whilst telling the other party to "Go to mediation" is not the first step on the road to consensus. bobrayner (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
As this is a biography of a living person, we do have to be quite sensitive. What information do each of you feel should/shouldn't be in the article? bobrayner (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What should be included? Merely the objective facts. Which include the fact that this public figure has had a sex change operation. The sex (change) of a person is a fundamental part of who they are and must be included in it. It is not merely gossip. -- user:fdewaele, 18:47, 21 March 2011 (CET).


 * I'd like to offer a dissenting opinion, please. Sexuality is a core component of who we are, and those that appear to not fall into the traditional pattern of "male" and "female" tend to take a lot of abuse and misunderstanding.  (I'm not debating the fact that there are cases of ambiguous sexuality - that is a fact of life.)  I agree with the need to be accurate in a biography as to the sex of the individual, but I propose that the sexual change history of that individual is that individual's private information.  Consider this - would you want your sexual orientation made public if you were gay or lesbian?  I think it might have the same connotation to some people, potentially causing abuse and misunderstanding as well.  Thank you.  --Alex146 (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When you out yourself, then it is no longer private. Plus when a public person has such an operation, it becomes newsworthy and reportable. Plenty of jurisprudence with regards to the fact that when you're a public person and do something newsworthy, the press reports on it (even if it's the gutter press), it's no invasion of privacy. -- fdewaele, 20 April 2011, 9:08 CET.
 * Wikipedia is not the "gutter press"; it's an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and an encyclopedia should be correct and comprehensive. As I said before, the sex (change) of a person is a fundamental part of who they are and must be included in it. It is not merely gossip which should be struck. Besides, where do you draw the line? For which person do you accept it and for whom not? Would you still scrap it if it were Prince William? Probably not... but that would be using a double standard vis-a-vis others. --- My legal point is that if it isn't an invasion of privacy for the gutter press, than it cetainly isn't either for an encyclopedia. -- fdewaele, 20 April 2011, 15:20 CET.
 * I'm answering this partially in situ, to preserve the relationship of this response with the prior comment - Yes, an encyclopedia should be correct and comprehensive. And, yes, there is freedom of speech.  But, also - yes, you have to draw the line someplace, and I believe that this line is fairly well defined.  Please continue reading this below - my tertiary input - as that is where this fits. --Alex146 (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * When I suggested that you consider how you would feel about your sexual orientation being made public, I was not talking about "outing oneself" - I was talking about something that you felt was private being made public. It comes back to the concept that some people, regrettably, do not understand things that appear to deviate from the norm, and they use that information to gossip about and/or bully someone else.  I am simply positing the idea that some things do not belong in the public domain, even for public people, because not everyone is equipped to deal with that knowledge in a rational, fair, and non judgmental way.  Also, I agree with bobrayner that Wikipedia is not the "gutter press", and I oppose fdewaele's argument that "it's no invasion of privacy" because it does not ring true in the grand schema of things.  Thank you.  --Alex146 (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Secondary input, partially as Devil's Advocate - I talked to a good friend of mine - a clinical psychiatrist - about this issue - and she both agreed and disagreed with my position. She agreed that many people do not have the level of understanding and insight to properly deal with knowledge of special things such as sexual realignment surgery or sexual orientation, and, on that basis, she felt that this type of information should not be part of a public biography.  She disagreed, however, on the basis that highly public people do get very detailed scrutiny of their public and private lives and that it was probably the way of the world.  She did express regret on that disagreement, so I think, on balance, that she and I are both agreed that this issue should not be publicized.  Thank you.  --Alex146 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Tertiary input - followup and consolidation of my prior arguments: This issue is one of fear - fear from ostracism - fear from misunderstanding - fear of being bullied - fear of not being able to function in light of other people holding private information about one's self. In an ideal world, we would not have this fear, because everyone would understand that sometimes sexual identity and/or orientation is uncertain - and that being purely male or purely female are not the only possible outcomes of our genetic, cultural, or environmental backgrounds.  The problem is that many do not understand - many might think that such a "deviation" is wrong - many might think, even though there are laws against it, that a bias should be applied in such cases.  Lets go to the highest law - The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights - the fourth of the "four freedoms" is freedom from fear.  While I will agree that Freedom from Fear may have its basis in freedom from fear of aggression, akin to Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1941 "Four Freedom's Speech", I truly believe that Freedom From Fear is much more fundamental than just that.  In summary, it is my humble opinion that the history of a sexual realignment surgery, just like someone's sexual orientation, does not belong in a public biography, and it does not matter to whom the biography refers - it could be the President - The Pope - me - or even the poorest homeless person on the streets of Calcutta - all of us are entitled to freedom from fear and a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Thank you.  --Alex146 (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I've been waiting a while for netnus to turn up, and it seems increasingly unlikely now!
 * fdewaele, do you have anything else you could add? bobrayner (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? bobrayner (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Inactivity
I have closed this case, for lack of any recent activity. In any case it would be difficult to make progress when one of the parties doesn't get involved in mediation. bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)