Aroundthewayboy (talk | contribs) m fixed spacing issue |
Aroundthewayboy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
::::::{{ping|Bluerasberry}} I have never framed this as a MOS issue, I have always regarded it as a content issue. Also, I have been careful to identify the other editors as ''new editors'' as the subject has no confirmed Wikipedia account. Aside from the editors on this page, there' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeilN/Archive_19#Laverne_Cox this] (note my unanswered response) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeilN/Archive_19#Laverne_Cox_2 this]. Questioning if I think I'm using Wikipedia as vehicle to harm this person borders between absurd and offensive. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 15:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC) |
::::::{{ping|Bluerasberry}} I have never framed this as a MOS issue, I have always regarded it as a content issue. Also, I have been careful to identify the other editors as ''new editors'' as the subject has no confirmed Wikipedia account. Aside from the editors on this page, there' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeilN/Archive_19#Laverne_Cox this] (note my unanswered response) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeilN/Archive_19#Laverne_Cox_2 this]. Questioning if I think I'm using Wikipedia as vehicle to harm this person borders between absurd and offensive. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 15:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::::{{u|NeilN}} Thank you. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 15:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::{{u|NeilN}} Thank you. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 15:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::: In that link, Laverne herself explains how she is personally harmed. She has written about this Wikipedia on Facebook. What more evidence can you ask for? If she has a legal team, I hope she sues you to oblivion. You are 100% using Wikipedia as a vehicle to harm her. You are disgusting, and there is no presumed assumption of your good intentions, since you FLAUNT your intention to harm her!! [[User:Aroundthewayboy|Aroundthewayboy]] ([[User talk:Aroundthewayboy|talk]]) 22:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Ms. Cox does not ''appear'' to wish to hide her gender status, thus it is reasonable for Wikipedia to indicate that status, including birth name. Were she one who intended ''not'' to make her status known, I would be more inclined to avoid mentioning the birth name. I see no "maliciousness" in mentioning that name, including in the lead. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC) |
Ms. Cox does not ''appear'' to wish to hide her gender status, thus it is reasonable for Wikipedia to indicate that status, including birth name. Were she one who intended ''not'' to make her status known, I would be more inclined to avoid mentioning the birth name. I see no "maliciousness" in mentioning that name, including in the lead. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 22:02, 8 November 2014
Biography: Actors and Filmmakers C‑class | ||||||||||
|
LGBT studies C‑class | |||||||
|
Reads like an ad
Where's the objectivity? Where's the educational value? This "encyclopedia" article reads like an advertisement and should be deleted pornto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.242.246 (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please create an account if you want to be taken seriously, and please raise specific objections about the article.Euchrid (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hello 68.224 Note that you are welcome to keep editing as an IP for as long as you wish. I will look at the article, however we do have a criteria for speedy deletion as advertisement. If, after reading the article you don't feel like the article meets the criteria, you are welcome to start a discussion at WP:Articles for deletion. If you don't want to delete the article after all, then providing constructive critsism would be welcome. Cheers! Tazerdadog (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- The initial points are not worthy of rejoinder because they are so vague and seemingly biased, not to mention unmoored from established Wikipedia policies on what qualifies as notability (which this article demonstrates again and again). Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
TIME Cover
Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning was on the TIME cover in 2013. Cox is not the first openly trans person to appear on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.213.89 (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- The TIME cover in question dated from June 24, 2013, and Manning did not come out as trans until the day after her sentencing, August 22. Thefamouseccles (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with thefamouseccles' interpretation.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Reliable source
I keep getting reverted when I add a reference stating that her birth name was Laverne Cox. Any thoughts on whether this reference is a reliable source?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- I feel like the subtitle "Exposing and combating liberal media bias" makes it pretty clear that this is a heavily biased (and therefore unreliable) news source. I would not be comfortable using it as a reference on an article of this nature. Euchrid (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- But I'm only using it to reveal her male birth name, nothing else. Georgia guy (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Is this information listed nowhere else? If you really feel the need to include it, and I'm not convinced that it belongs in the article at all, given the sensitive nature of the information, can it not be found somewhere that doesn't have an explicitly transphobic agenda?Euchrid (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- But I'm only using it to reveal her male birth name, nothing else. Georgia guy (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Suicide attempt - relevent to include?
@98.30.59.28: @70.118.9.138: There appears to be some disagrement as to wether her suicide attempt should be included as relevent in her article. Can we attempt to fomr some sort of consensus on this matter before it has to be taken to WP:DR. Amortias (T)(C) 22:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Although unfortunate and quite possibly an unpleasent subject a suicide attempt is quite a noteable (though not for positive reasons) event in someones life. If they have come to a point where they have decided to make such a life changing decision it fels to me as if it should be included. Amortias (T)(C) 22:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Include: Sourced and significant. Though the sentence is a bit incongruous at present, when the article is fleshed out with more info it will be plainly useful. BethNaught (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Include: Sourced and somewhat significant, since she has discussed it in interviews. Not worthy of a long section in such a short entry, but at an appropriate length currently (i.e., one short sentence). Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Include: Sourced and an all-too-common issue among LGBTQ folks. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Include: Sourced and significant. It is relevant to the issue of whether being Trans is a psychological disorder, and if that severe depression is innately due to being Trans or if it is environmental. Walterego (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please do not attempt to conduct original research via Wikipedia. You can do your own original research in your own sandbox (good luck with that). Aroundthewayboy (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Pronoun reverting
A series of IP edits have been made, altering some or all of the feminine pronouns in the article to male ones. The IPs in question are 2602:304:AEB0:FF89:4D80:21B6:82DC:549C, 2602:304:AEB0:F869:91EE:25E8:1EA8:EE9A and 2605:E000:9C41:C400:34FB:FAA2:DF68:A9F2. In all cases they have been reverted and warned, with varying degrees of civility. I'm no expert, but it seems pretty likely that these are the work of the same user, given the similarity of both the IPs and the edits. Can anyone who knows more about tracking these things confirm, and anyone who knows more about WP policy advise who it should be reported to? It doesn't seem severe enough for the Incident page or obvious enough for the vandalism page, but something needs to be done. Euchrid (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Euchrid: If the disruption persists, consider WP:RFPP. --NeilN talk to me 23:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Needs more Bio information
This page is woefully lacking in basic information about its subject. Most importantly, What is Cox's date of birth? How old is she? That's one of the first things a page about a person should have. Plus a lot of other info. Walterego (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Walterego: We can only add what reliable sources have reported. Do you have a reliable source for her age? --NeilN talk to me 17:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Birth Name
What's the thought behind including this in the first line of the article? I know this is a standard practice in Wiki articles, but it can be disrespectful to share a trans person's birth name (especially so obviously.) Any ideas how she feels about this? The bio on her own website does not even include this name. NLSarah (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- @NLSarah: Articles report on "real things". I can accept removing it from the lead but it should at least appear in the body. --NeilN talk to me 03:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Those were really weak sources for her birth name, since they appeared to be using Wikipedia as THEIR source. It is standard Wikipedia practice in bios of living trans people to not include their birth names unless that is common knowledge in mainstream sources -- what you are doing is MAKING it common knowledge by including it in the Wikipedia article, which is original research, which is one of the biggest no-nos in Wikipedia. Please cease and desist. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please desist from accusing two high quality sources of not doing proper fact checking without providing any credible evidence. --NeilN talk to me 23:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to be on a personal campaign to publicly humiliate Ms. Cox by conducting original research about her birth name. That is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have invited others to this discussion, and I will defer to consensus as long as a significant number of long-term editors weigh in. However, it is standard Wikipedia policy to remove contentious information IMMEDIATELY from bios of living people. Please do not reinsert this potentially libelous material unless the consensus on this page agrees that is appropriate to do so.
- To refresh your memory, from the top of this talk page: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."
- As an editor of about a decade, I assert that this is very poorly sourced and contentious material about living persons. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Aroundthewayboy: Reminding you to WP:AGF. Do not try to guess NeilN's intentions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please desist from accusing two high quality sources of not doing proper fact checking without providing any credible evidence. --NeilN talk to me 23:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Those were really weak sources for her birth name, since they appeared to be using Wikipedia as THEIR source. It is standard Wikipedia practice in bios of living trans people to not include their birth names unless that is common knowledge in mainstream sources -- what you are doing is MAKING it common knowledge by including it in the Wikipedia article, which is original research, which is one of the biggest no-nos in Wikipedia. Please cease and desist. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The birth name is found in multiple reliable sources. It is understandable that Cox may want to ignore/minimize that portion of their life. Thats true of lots of people for lots of reasons, but it is not encyclopedic to do so. Cox's notability is due in no small part to their status as a transgender person. By definition transgender means a prior identity and transition. To not cover that info is a failure of the most basic sort. [1] [2] [3] Gaijin42 (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- First time her birth name was added was August 3, 2014 in this edit. It cites an article from June 19, 2014. That article was edited on September 04, 2014 in which her birth name was removed. However, an archived version from the Wayback Machine can be found here with her birth name mentioned. WP:CIRCULAR, the crux of Aroundthewayboy's argument, is impossible here as her birth name had not been added to the article prior to this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks EvergreenFir. Aroundthewayboy I ask that you stop attacking me and my motives here and on other pages. I've edited articles on transgender people and topics before and no one has ever attacked me, except for anonymous transphobic editors. There are only so many ways you can say "born in x" and USA Today and The National Post are regarded as good quality sources with a reputation for fact checking. --NeilN talk to me 08:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I fail to recognize a problem in sharing the birth name in this article. The birth name is used in two sources which seem to meet WP:RS.
- Dekel, Jon (August 20, 2014). "'I'm not interested in being the only voice': Laverne Cox on transforming TV with her breakout Orange Is the New Black role". National Post. Retrieved September 5, 2014.
- Freydkin, Donna (September 1, 2014). "Best summer ever - 5 names flying high on success". USA Today. Retrieved September 5, 2014.
- I see no one saying that these sources are not reliable and no one providing any evidence that the subject of the article is suppressing knowledge of their birth name. If someone is making an argument that all or most transgender people seek to hide their birth names then I find that argument strange. Without evidence that this particular person wishes for her birth name to be suppressed, I cannot support an WP:IDENTITY argument for removing this information. Generally, I would be supportive of protection for people's identifies when there is evidence that they want any other names dissociated from their public persona. I agree with Aroundthewayboy's view that contentious information about identity is often removed from Wikipedia even when it has sources, but I cannot recognize any reason here why the birth name should be viewed as contentious. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Even if Cox wanted her birth name suppressed I would not support removing it from this article. Wikipedia does not only document the subject's desired "public persona". --NeilN talk to me 14:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- NeilN There have been cases in which personal information about the subjects of articles has been removed when it was made public in a malicious way with intent to harm the subject of the article. Wikipedia does not seek to propagate harassment campaigns that have some minor presence in reliable sources. There are cases when common sense and editorial discretion override thoughtless parroting of reliable sources. No one has made any argument that this is a case for editorial discretion, but if anyone did, I hope that you would be open minded in hearing it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry I have had discussions with several new editors who have indicated Cox wants the name removed. However each time I have pointed out the name is cited properly, using sources that bear no ill-intent toward the subject. I did agree that the bolded name should be removed from the lead. I am uncomfortable with the subject having the power to completely remove a standard biographical detail. This is not a lack of "common sense" or the "thoughtless parroting of reliable sources". --NeilN talk to me 14:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- NeilN You seem to want to frame this as a process of the manual of style, and that is irrelevant to me. I am only interested in identifying all available information about harassment and claims of potentially illegal breach of protected personal information. I fear that I am failing to communicate to you as I wish that I could. By "parroting" and "common sense" I intended to draw attention to the relative lack of importance of editing text as compared to a claim that the material is faulty, stolen, or being used in an illegal way. I am unsure whether these claims exist and I am not sure to whom you have talked or why. I have no doubt that you followed routine Wikipedia editing process but I am not clear on what complaints have been made or from whom they have originated.
- Can you please share all the information that you have which supports the assertion that this person wants her birth name removed? Do you have reason to believe that the subject of the article is expressing a complaint of harm due to your actions? Do you think that you are using Wikipedia as a vehicle for harming this person? What reasons exist to believe that anyone is doing these things?
- Please share all the information you have from the subject of this article and her personal representatives about the harm coming from this Wikipedia article. If we get a reliable claim that the subject of this article is being harassed then we should have a discussion about the extent to which Wikipedia should promote the harassment campaign. If you are uncomfortable with the subject of the article requesting protection from a harassment campaign then just share what you know and I will get comments from others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: I have never framed this as a MOS issue, I have always regarded it as a content issue. Also, I have been careful to identify the other editors as new editors as the subject has no confirmed Wikipedia account. Aside from the editors on this page, there' this (note my unanswered response) and this. Questioning if I think I'm using Wikipedia as vehicle to harm this person borders between absurd and offensive. --NeilN talk to me 15:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- NeilN Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- In that link, Laverne herself explains how she is personally harmed. She has written about this Wikipedia on Facebook. What more evidence can you ask for? If she has a legal team, I hope she sues you to oblivion. You are 100% using Wikipedia as a vehicle to harm her. You are disgusting, and there is no presumed assumption of your good intentions, since you FLAUNT your intention to harm her!! Aroundthewayboy (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: I have never framed this as a MOS issue, I have always regarded it as a content issue. Also, I have been careful to identify the other editors as new editors as the subject has no confirmed Wikipedia account. Aside from the editors on this page, there' this (note my unanswered response) and this. Questioning if I think I'm using Wikipedia as vehicle to harm this person borders between absurd and offensive. --NeilN talk to me 15:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry I have had discussions with several new editors who have indicated Cox wants the name removed. However each time I have pointed out the name is cited properly, using sources that bear no ill-intent toward the subject. I did agree that the bolded name should be removed from the lead. I am uncomfortable with the subject having the power to completely remove a standard biographical detail. This is not a lack of "common sense" or the "thoughtless parroting of reliable sources". --NeilN talk to me 14:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- NeilN There have been cases in which personal information about the subjects of articles has been removed when it was made public in a malicious way with intent to harm the subject of the article. Wikipedia does not seek to propagate harassment campaigns that have some minor presence in reliable sources. There are cases when common sense and editorial discretion override thoughtless parroting of reliable sources. No one has made any argument that this is a case for editorial discretion, but if anyone did, I hope that you would be open minded in hearing it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Even if Cox wanted her birth name suppressed I would not support removing it from this article. Wikipedia does not only document the subject's desired "public persona". --NeilN talk to me 14:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Ms. Cox does not appear to wish to hide her gender status, thus it is reasonable for Wikipedia to indicate that status, including birth name. Were she one who intended not to make her status known, I would be more inclined to avoid mentioning the birth name. I see no "maliciousness" in mentioning that name, including in the lead. Collect (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Laverne has mentioned repeatedly in the press that she does not want to be referred to by the name assigned to her at birth. For example, in this article that she wrote in the Huffington Post, she writes about how when she was contemplating suicide she wanted to include instructions in her suicide note to not be referred to by that name. There are other examples of the deep disrespect and psychological harm that she asserts this misnaming does.
- "I was going to write that I shouldn't be referred to by the name on my birth certificate but by the name that reflects my female identity -- that is, my legal name, the name I took after I dropped my old first name. ("Laverne" was my middle name, and "Cox" was my last name at birth.) I basically didn't want to be disrespected and misgendered in my death, as all too often happens to transgender folks in news reports on our deaths."
- Her deadname being once reported in an obscure blog interview with her mother is very different from it being trumpeted in her Wikipedia entry, which is the very first search result for her name.
- If it was not the editors' intentions to deeply disrespect her, it is certainly the effect of their actions. I can't be bothered to get into an edit war, but you will be the ones who have to sleep at night knowing how you've publicly disrespected her on such a sensitive topic, one that literally drove her to the brink of suicide. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)