Cassie Evenstar
Recent removals edit
I see you are not using your primary account mostly likely due to the political nature of the topic you are changing. I was merely editing article related to the coronavirus which led me to Rachel Levine. You are correct per the Manual of Style guidelines on changed names that unless the person was notable before their transition should the name not be mentioned in the lead. It makes no mention of the articles subsections. Manual of Style/Biography#Changed_names is a guideline, however Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity is not. It is a draft yet to be approved. To not include someone's birth is a violation of WP:NPOV which is a pillar of not only Wikipedia, but all encyclopedias. Encyclopedias are not political and must be neutral. All historical figures including featured biographical articles mention the the birth name. An encyclopedia is created to giving reliable information, people are always interested in the birth name of an individual regardless of subject. Transgender individual are no different. You know these edits are controversial which is why an SPA was created. Omnipedia (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. I'd like to make a correction; firstly, this isn't a secondary account. I'm just a new editor who felt inspired to work on correcting instances in which transgender individuals have had their previous names needlessly included in their Wikipedia articles. I think that your trying to pin motives on me is rather off-putting, and I'm not really sure why you're doing that.
- In any case, yes, clearly the inclusion of trans peoples' birth names in articles is somewhat controversial; however, to say that failing to do so violates neutrality seems to me like an overreach. Indeed, there is plenty of precedent for declining to include these birth names when they were not notable under that name. See, for example, the articles relating to Laverne Cox, Janet Mock, Natalie Wynn, and others. Cassie Evenstar (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- In the case of Laverne Cox there was no reliable sources added to the name, I listed two to an administrator since there was a discussion. I added the birth name of Janet Mock with a source of her speaking about her real name to give strength to others transitioning. This should be uncontroversial. Natalie Wynn's article is about her YouTube channel and I am unable to find reliable sources for her birth name. Omnipedia (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Cassie Evenstar, I also think you need to slow down with your edits. Pre-transition names are not precluded from articles simply because the individual was not notable under that name (although you also appear to be removing it in those cases as well). As the gender identity MOS draft guidance linked above says, "If a transgender subject's former or legal name is not well known or widely reported, don't include it, even if it appears in a few reliable sources." If the person was not notable under their former name, it should not be included in the lead, but that does not mean it should not be included at all. A former name is appropriate to include (such as in an early life section) if it is well known or widely reported. I don't think going through multiple pages making this type of controversial change is helpful, especially if edit warring with others without starting talk page discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- That seems like a fair critique. I apologize if I'm being overly-hasty in my edits. I agree that there is sometimes sufficient reason to include the birth names of trans people within articles. That said, I think there should be a preference towards not including prior names for trans people, given the disrespect inherent in deadnaming them. I think there should instead be compelling and targeted reason to include prior names; for instance, in the article about Ben Barres, rather than saying "Ben Barres was born -deadname-", it would make a lot more sense to say something along the lines of "Barres published notable scientific work under his prior name Barbara A. Barres" in the section where work he published under his prior name is relevant. Barres's prior name is hardly relevant to his birth, and including it in the first sentence of his personal life seems to give it undue weight. Let me know what your thoughts on this are. Cassie Evenstar (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your explanation, and I pretty much agree with what you have said. I think that edit to Barres's article would be a great improvement, too. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Great! I went ahead and made that change. For what it's worth, though, I can't actually find any secondary sources which indicate that he used to publish under his previous name. I have found a few journal articles of his which used his previous name (which seems more like a primary source), though many actually only use "B. A. Barres". Cassie Evenstar (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your explanation, and I pretty much agree with what you have said. I think that edit to Barres's article would be a great improvement, too. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- That seems like a fair critique. I apologize if I'm being overly-hasty in my edits. I agree that there is sometimes sufficient reason to include the birth names of trans people within articles. That said, I think there should be a preference towards not including prior names for trans people, given the disrespect inherent in deadnaming them. I think there should instead be compelling and targeted reason to include prior names; for instance, in the article about Ben Barres, rather than saying "Ben Barres was born -deadname-", it would make a lot more sense to say something along the lines of "Barres published notable scientific work under his prior name Barbara A. Barres" in the section where work he published under his prior name is relevant. Barres's prior name is hardly relevant to his birth, and including it in the first sentence of his personal life seems to give it undue weight. Let me know what your thoughts on this are. Cassie Evenstar (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Cassie Evenstar, I also think you need to slow down with your edits. Pre-transition names are not precluded from articles simply because the individual was not notable under that name (although you also appear to be removing it in those cases as well). As the gender identity MOS draft guidance linked above says, "If a transgender subject's former or legal name is not well known or widely reported, don't include it, even if it appears in a few reliable sources." If the person was not notable under their former name, it should not be included in the lead, but that does not mean it should not be included at all. A former name is appropriate to include (such as in an early life section) if it is well known or widely reported. I don't think going through multiple pages making this type of controversial change is helpful, especially if edit warring with others without starting talk page discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- In the case of Laverne Cox there was no reliable sources added to the name, I listed two to an administrator since there was a discussion. I added the birth name of Janet Mock with a source of her speaking about her real name to give strength to others transitioning. This should be uncontroversial. Natalie Wynn's article is about her YouTube channel and I am unable to find reliable sources for her birth name. Omnipedia (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)