| Revision as of 05:14, 29 December 2016 editLgbt.history.ig (talk | contribs)32 edits →RFC: Gender← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:16, 29 December 2016 edit undoFreeknowledgecreator (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users179,107 edits →RFC: Gender: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
| ::::Respectfully, whether something is "offensive" or not is not relevant. Everything I've read in the article suggests that Cashier was a woman who presented herself as a man, so the status quo prior to your edits looks reasonable. Furthermore, it is ''entirely'' inappropriate to propose encouraging people who do not already have Misplaced Pages accounts to support you here: please see ]. ] (]) 02:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC) | ::::Respectfully, whether something is "offensive" or not is not relevant. Everything I've read in the article suggests that Cashier was a woman who presented herself as a man, so the status quo prior to your edits looks reasonable. Furthermore, it is ''entirely'' inappropriate to propose encouraging people who do not already have Misplaced Pages accounts to support you here: please see ]. ] (]) 02:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Respectfully, you did nothing to address my previous comment save for harping on my use of the word "offensive" as an additional description after the primary description of "grossly inaccurate." I am having a hard time understanding how Susan Stryker, easily the most respected trans historian out there, writing in a study for the Department of the Interior, and supported by a number of other reliable sources, does nothing to suggest that our previous understanding of Cashier's identity--an understanding which, again, was based ''entirely'' on antiquated notions of gender that took little to no account of trans existence--is more properly placed in the trans spectrum. Moreover, the number of people following our account that already have Misplaced Pages accounts is quite substantial, based on previous conversations with followers, so please don't assume I meant anything about non-Misplaced Pages account holders. The bottom line is that I will continue to make sure that those who do not give proper credence to the clearly reliable sources I've provided are not the final arbiters of an extremely important issue; the only reason why you would ignore Stryker's work, Moser's work, Teich's work, Ernst's work, and the others is because you simply do not want to allow for trans history. It's a real problem. ] (]) 04:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC) | :::::Respectfully, you did nothing to address my previous comment save for harping on my use of the word "offensive" as an additional description after the primary description of "grossly inaccurate." I am having a hard time understanding how Susan Stryker, easily the most respected trans historian out there, writing in a study for the Department of the Interior, and supported by a number of other reliable sources, does nothing to suggest that our previous understanding of Cashier's identity--an understanding which, again, was based ''entirely'' on antiquated notions of gender that took little to no account of trans existence--is more properly placed in the trans spectrum. Moreover, the number of people following our account that already have Misplaced Pages accounts is quite substantial, based on previous conversations with followers, so please don't assume I meant anything about non-Misplaced Pages account holders. The bottom line is that I will continue to make sure that those who do not give proper credence to the clearly reliable sources I've provided are not the final arbiters of an extremely important issue; the only reason why you would ignore Stryker's work, Moser's work, Teich's work, Ernst's work, and the others is because you simply do not want to allow for trans history. It's a real problem. ] (]) 04:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::The bottom line is that Misplaced Pages operates by consensus, and you have no consensus for your proposed changes to the article. So far, it's two against one, as I pretty much agree with Roscelese. Meat puppetry is unacceptable here, and unfortunately your comments create a suspicion (whether justified or not) that you are prepared to encourage it. That won't help you. ] (]) 06:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:16, 29 December 2016
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Grammar and style: criterion met
Hidden references
A previous editor left some research clues hidden in brackets on the article page. Two of them led to arcane or missing newspaper archives. I've removed them from the article, but reproduce them below in case they are useful to anyone:
The novel The Last Skirt, by Lynda Durrant, is based on his life.
!-- http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/living/16350616.htm --
There are plans to restore the house that Cashier lived in for forty years.
!-- http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/local/15994191.htm --
-- Yamara 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Additional reference
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104452266 played today. Tells how he died.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Contextualize Blanton reference(s)?
I note that the Blanton piece treats as strictly women all the soldiers discussed, whereas the approach of this article is to recognize Cashier as transgender. It might be worthwhile to contextualize the footnote, seeing as the Blanton piece doesn't appear to consider in any way the possibility that any of the soldiers might not be "women pretending to be men" but rather, persons of male gender identity who were classified by others as women based on their external sexual organs.Lawikitejana (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Lawikitenjana makes a valid point. Jennie's gender identity doesn't seem clear based on the information in the article. Also the link supporting the sentence, "was born female bodied, but lived as a man" is dead. I'm going to remove it and that sentence. 66.205.171.204 (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Transgender?:
None of the sources cited provide clear evidence that Jennie/Albert was a transgendered person, including the deposition. Several of the articles provided a whole host of reasons why women cross-dressed to fight in the civil war, including patriotism, greater independence, and a better wage as a soldier than was available as either a civilian man or woman. The deposition is unclear about Jennie's gender identity, which is exacerbated by the fact that it was taken 50 years after the war, memories are delicate, and the use of the male pronoun to refer to Albert when first questioned about her, likely reflects the fact that his innate memories of Jennie are all about Albert. It isn't clear to me that classifying Albert/Jennie as transgendered is anything other than speculation. I would propose changing the pronouns to the gender normative she/her, and adding a paragraph with the unclear hypothesis that Jennie was a trans-man. 66.205.171.204 (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Transgender (pronounced /trænzˈdʒɛndər/) is a general term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies to vary from culturally conventional gender roles."
- Transgender covers a huge spectrum and Alberts action would still come under that umbrella in my opinion.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I find it highly dubious that Cashier was female-identified, as most wartime cross-dressers returned to their female identities after the war.Asarelah (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- RafikiSykes, it doesn't matter that "transgender" covers a broad spectrum in this case. We still wouldn't say that a woman who cross-dresses but identifies as a woman is a transman. That's the point the IP was making. Asarelah made a better argument than you, with fewer words. 23.20.10.162 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- I find it highly dubious that Cashier was female-identified, as most wartime cross-dressers returned to their female identities after the war.Asarelah (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Correct name/pronouns?
Parts of this article refer to "Albert Cashier" and use the personal pronoun "he", while others use "she" and Jennie Hodges. Which one is proper? MechaChrist (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC) (logged in to properly sign my comment)
- Manual of style use the gender the person themselves identified as throughout through their life.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Reference to Thomas Hannah saying Cashier was sent back to Belvidere
Thomas Hannah, Jr. does not mention Albert Cashier by name. He says a woman was found in the company and that woman was sent back to Belvidere, Illinois. There may have been more than one woman in Company G of the 95th Illinois. Mbfiske (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I have uploaded a copy of the Thomas Hannah letter to Wiki Commons.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Thomas_Hannah_letter,_1862-11-17,_Jackson,_TN.pdf
My quotation is from the left side of page 1 in the pdf file. I think this should be included as a reference, but do not know how to do that.
Others are welcome to try their own hand at accurately transcribing the sentence, complete with misspellings.
Mbfiske (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
More than one woman in Illinois 95th Infantry
Thomas Hannah's letter of 17 November 1862 raises the question of how many women enlisted in the Illinois 95th Infantry. Samuel Pepper's letters transcribed in "My Dear Wife" mention Albert. D. J. Cashiere, at least as transcribed. A thorough examination of the muster rolls of the 95th is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbfiske (talk • contribs) 00:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't sign Mbfiske (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Salt account suspended
Several of the references in this article from Salt go to an "account suspended" and need to be removed.
Mbfiske (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hicks-Bartlett, Alani, reference
I suggest this source be deleted. Nothing is footnoted. The reference list for this article includes:
From Gerhard P. Clausius, "The Little Soldier of the 95th: Albert D. J. Cashier," Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, 1958; Gordon A. Cotton, "Illinois Civil War roster includes woman soldier Saunemin's Jennie Hodgers," Vicksburg Evening Post, no date, copy from Saunemin Grade School; Rodney 0. Davis, "Private Albert Cashier As Regarded by His/Her Comrades," Illinois Historical Journal (1989); Richard Hall, Patriots in Disguise: Women Warriors of the Civil War; Mary Catherine Lannon, "Albert D. J. Cashier and the Ninety-Fifth Illinois Infantry (1844-1915)," Master's thesis (1969); student historian's interview with Ruth Morehart, Nov. 14, 1993; Edward Zuckerman, "When Jennie Comes Marchin' Home," undated paper in files at Saunemin Historical Society.
The original sources need to be cited.
Mbfiske (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Find A Grave Reference
The link to the Find A Grave web page for Albert Cashier no longer works. I attempted to find his grave under his name, but was forced to use Jennie Hodgers instead. It is listed there under Jennie Hodgers, as the webmasters at Find A Grave have chosen to refer to him as "she" throughout the article on him. I will leave it up to more knowledgeable wiki editors to do the proper editing and research if needed. NativeSonKY (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Thomas Hannah Jr reference to a woman in the Illinois 95th Company G
I restored text to the article on Albert Cashier for the second time. Thomas Hannah Jr refers to a woman in the Illinois 95th in a letter to his wife.
Both times this edit was removed, it was for misspelling and failure to provide sources. I provided a link to the original letter in talk.
Perhaps Thomas Hannah Jr. provides no insight into Albert. I think Thomas contributes to the discussion.
Michael B. Fiske — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbfiske (talk • contribs) 00:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Albert small and captured in battle
There is no reference for the following,
"Other soldiers thought that Cashier was small and preferred to be alone, which was not uncommon. He was once captured in battle, but escaped back to Union lines after overpowering a prison guard. Cashier fought with the regiment through the war until August 17, 1865, when all the soldiers were mustered in and out."
I will leave it to someone else to remove.
Mbfiske (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
RFC: Gender
 |
|
Should the subject be referred to as a woman who dressed as a man, or as a transgender man? There are sources which support both options, so this RFC is aimed at determining the community's view as to which theory is supported by sources that are more numerous, reliable, recent, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment - why do you feel that an RfC is necessary? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @FreeKnowledgeCreator: Lgbt.history.ig (talk · contribs) and I do not agree, and I thought it better to start an RFC rather than let them continue the edit war they've stated that they plan to wage if anyone reverts them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I see the problem now. Under the circumstances, the best thing for the moment might be simply to revert the article to the version prior to any edit war. I might need to research the subject more to take a firm view of the issue, but I suspect that the status quo whereby Cashier is described as a woman disguised as a man is more accurate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- The notion that this issue is going to be decided by a straw poll of sources is ridiculous, as it is plainly obvious that the majority of sources would not have referred to Cashier by his proper gender until the mid-2000s or so. I have provided a number of reliable sources, including those from some of the most preeminent trans scholars, that support the increasingly accepted fact that Cashier was a man; to describe him as "a woman disguised as a man" is not only grossly inaccurate, it's silly and offensive. I said I intended to monitor the page to make sure that Cashier's history is respected; this person has decided to cry wolf with this edit war nonsense. I don't need to edit this again. I am the creator and co-administrator of @lgbt_history, an Instagram account with just under 60,000 followers; if Cashier is misgendered on Misplaced Pages again, I will make sure that our followers are made aware of your efforts at queer erasure and let them know how to remedy it. That Roscelese has made it a goal to keep Albert Cashier a "woman" is sad and I would hope that a third-party would see through the efforts. Lgbt.history.ig (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Respectfully, whether something is "offensive" or not is not relevant. Everything I've read in the article suggests that Cashier was a woman who presented herself as a man, so the status quo prior to your edits looks reasonable. Furthermore, it is entirely inappropriate to propose encouraging people who do not already have Misplaced Pages accounts to support you here: please see WP:MEATPUPPET. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Respectfully, you did nothing to address my previous comment save for harping on my use of the word "offensive" as an additional description after the primary description of "grossly inaccurate." I am having a hard time understanding how Susan Stryker, easily the most respected trans historian out there, writing in a study for the Department of the Interior, and supported by a number of other reliable sources, does nothing to suggest that our previous understanding of Cashier's identity--an understanding which, again, was based entirely on antiquated notions of gender that took little to no account of trans existence--is more properly placed in the trans spectrum. Moreover, the number of people following our account that already have Misplaced Pages accounts is quite substantial, based on previous conversations with followers, so please don't assume I meant anything about non-Misplaced Pages account holders. The bottom line is that I will continue to make sure that those who do not give proper credence to the clearly reliable sources I've provided are not the final arbiters of an extremely important issue; the only reason why you would ignore Stryker's work, Moser's work, Teich's work, Ernst's work, and the others is because you simply do not want to allow for trans history. It's a real problem. Lgbt.history.ig (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that Misplaced Pages operates by consensus, and you have no consensus for your proposed changes to the article. So far, it's two against one, as I pretty much agree with Roscelese. Meat puppetry is unacceptable here, and unfortunately your comments create a suspicion (whether justified or not) that you are prepared to encourage it. That won't help you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Respectfully, you did nothing to address my previous comment save for harping on my use of the word "offensive" as an additional description after the primary description of "grossly inaccurate." I am having a hard time understanding how Susan Stryker, easily the most respected trans historian out there, writing in a study for the Department of the Interior, and supported by a number of other reliable sources, does nothing to suggest that our previous understanding of Cashier's identity--an understanding which, again, was based entirely on antiquated notions of gender that took little to no account of trans existence--is more properly placed in the trans spectrum. Moreover, the number of people following our account that already have Misplaced Pages accounts is quite substantial, based on previous conversations with followers, so please don't assume I meant anything about non-Misplaced Pages account holders. The bottom line is that I will continue to make sure that those who do not give proper credence to the clearly reliable sources I've provided are not the final arbiters of an extremely important issue; the only reason why you would ignore Stryker's work, Moser's work, Teich's work, Ernst's work, and the others is because you simply do not want to allow for trans history. It's a real problem. Lgbt.history.ig (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Respectfully, whether something is "offensive" or not is not relevant. Everything I've read in the article suggests that Cashier was a woman who presented herself as a man, so the status quo prior to your edits looks reasonable. Furthermore, it is entirely inappropriate to propose encouraging people who do not already have Misplaced Pages accounts to support you here: please see WP:MEATPUPPET. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- The notion that this issue is going to be decided by a straw poll of sources is ridiculous, as it is plainly obvious that the majority of sources would not have referred to Cashier by his proper gender until the mid-2000s or so. I have provided a number of reliable sources, including those from some of the most preeminent trans scholars, that support the increasingly accepted fact that Cashier was a man; to describe him as "a woman disguised as a man" is not only grossly inaccurate, it's silly and offensive. I said I intended to monitor the page to make sure that Cashier's history is respected; this person has decided to cry wolf with this edit war nonsense. I don't need to edit this again. I am the creator and co-administrator of @lgbt_history, an Instagram account with just under 60,000 followers; if Cashier is misgendered on Misplaced Pages again, I will make sure that our followers are made aware of your efforts at queer erasure and let them know how to remedy it. That Roscelese has made it a goal to keep Albert Cashier a "woman" is sad and I would hope that a third-party would see through the efforts. Lgbt.history.ig (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I see the problem now. Under the circumstances, the best thing for the moment might be simply to revert the article to the version prior to any edit war. I might need to research the subject more to take a firm view of the issue, but I suspect that the status quo whereby Cashier is described as a woman disguised as a man is more accurate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (military) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- Start-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- Start-Class American Civil War articles
- American Civil War task force articles
- Start-Class Ireland articles
- Mid-importance Ireland articles
- Start-Class Ireland articles of Mid-importance
- All WikiProject Ireland pages
- Start-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment