Talk:Allyson Robinson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

West Point[edit]

The official West Point alumni association has a searchable database of all persons who attended West Point even for one day, and no one with the name "Allyson Robinson" is listed in that database. Other than the claim to have graduated from West Point, there is no basis top verify if the person in question was ever a cadet at West Point. http://www.westpointaog.org/page.aspx?pid=4069&chid=259 Perhaps the article can be edited to state the this person claims to have graduated from West Point, but the official records of West Point do not list anyone by that name, so the claim cannot be verified. While it makes sense that the person has a new name, this does not change the fact that the attendance at West Point cannot be verified without knowing the prior alias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.131.88 (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you presume, when she was according to the Boston Globe article I linked, presenting as a male cadet, that she was using the name Allyson? --j⚛e deckertalk 21:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't presume that, as I explained above. The fact is that the assertion of graduation from West Point is in doubt because West Point has always kept very detailed public records of who graduates from West Point, and there is no way to verify the attendance of this person without something more than assertions. In this situation, the public records are clear and reliable, such that any assertion that they are inaccurate or incomplete would require some evidence, such as photographs as a cadet or at graduation or the former name of the person in question or a copy of the name change documents. Otherwise it is a claim backed up by no documentation, but with official records that do not support the claim.

And BTW you'll find her wife and classmate Danyelle Robinson in the West Point database. Class of 1994. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that person is in the database, but no name even similar to Allyson Robinson is listed in the database for the class of 1994, yet the database includes maiden and married names.

You don't know her first name, and she seems to have taken her wife's last name Robinson. If the Boston Globe isn't a good enough source for someone, there's always Stars and Stripes, a Department of Defense authorized news outlet. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the cited articles purport to have verified the claim about West Point graduation. This makes sense, given that a reporter never has no reason to doubt such a claim about where an interview subject went to school, but here the official records do not support the claim, so there must be more to overcome the doubt. The graduation is not a verified fact.
I'm afraid I must disagree. The Alumni Association is a primary source, and not one with an editorial process. The Boston Globe and Stars and Stripes are secondary sources, and ones with an editorial process. Our policies on verifiability are quite clear, the latter are preferred in every way. Moreover, the specific text inserted now amounts to no more and no less than an attempt to dispute the subject's veracity, which, given the lack of reliable sources for that accusation, rises to the level of a WP:BLP concern. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone is actually paying attention to this conversation. If you search the West Point Association of Graduates here, you'll now find: Allyson Robinson, Class of 1994. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Good catch! --j⚛e deckertalk 21:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now the database that was not a good source is suddenly a good source. LOL. 69.138.131.88 (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's still not a good source, and should not be added to the article. However, it now is consistent with the sources which do meet our criteria. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Allyson Robinson is an alias for Daniel Robinson[edit]

In the sources linked in the wikipedia article, the person "Allyson Robinson" claims to have prior experience as a Christian missionary in the Azores and as a theology student at Baylor University. A scholarly theology article published by Baylor University's George W. Truett Theological Seminary in its "Truett Journal of Church and Mission" was written by one of Baylor's seminary students, a man named Daniel Robinson, who lists his background as a Christian missionary in the Azores (Truett Journal of Church and Mission, ISSN 1543-3552, Volume 3 • Number 2 • Fall 2005 at http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/146573.pdf):

"DANIEL ROBINSON - is a first year student at Truett Seminary pursuing an M.Div. with a concentration in theology. Before coming to Truett, he pastored at Azorean Baptist Church, an international, English-language church in the Azores Islands of Portugal, where the membership regularly included people of over a dozen different denominational backgrounds. He is currently the pastor of Meadow Oaks Baptist Church in Temple, Texas. He may be contacted at daniel.robinson@gmail.com"

A google search for "daniel.robinson@gmail.com" gives a link to a 2003-2006 blog by pastor/student Daniel Robinson titled "NeoTheo(b)log", which lists credentials that match those of "Allyson Robinson" and a photo of a male who bears a striking resemblance to photos of Allyson Robinson, and the blog also lists that same email address as a way to contact Daniel Robinson (http://www.blogger.com/profile/14598565591103482792 and http://neotheologue.blogspot.com/neotheologportrait1.jpg).

The Truett journal article also contains a photograph of a male Daniel Robinson, who strongly resembles the photos of the person "Allyson Robinson".

In the wikipedia article the person "Allyson Robinson" is purportedly married to Danyelle Robinson. An article on the Baylor University website about Danyelle Robinson states that she is married to Daniel Robinson, a divinity student at Baylor's Truett Seminary: "Danyelle Robinson, a full-time mother of four, also understands how hard it is for parenting students. Her husband, Daniel Robinson, attends George W. Truett Theological Seminary and has a job." (http://www.baylor.edu/lariatarchives/news.php?action=story&story=37963). 69.138.131.78 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find this detective work persuasive, but I'm not sure how to use it as a citation. Also not sure it matters all that much. Who she is in her professional/activist career is far more important than a few details that we can only attach to her birth name. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name[edit]

Allyson Robinson's transgender status is not in dispute -- it's well documented in the entry. There is nothing particularly "contentious" about noting her birth name, and only something contentious would violated WP;BPL as I understand it. Or is there something else at WP:BPL relevant to stating her birth name and asking it carry a citation?

We already cite things she did under the name Daniel in the body of this entry, yet we have yet to find a source that documents her male name in a simple straightforward way. If we can't find one, we may have to drop info like things Daniel wrote, since we haven't shown that Daniel is Allyson. Though Sherlock's work above convinces me, it's not quite up to WP's citation standards I don't think. 20:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmclaughlin9 (talk • contribs)

  • Firstly, it's gross speculation and a violation of WP:BLP. Secondly, I see nothing that meets WP:RS in the links above, rather it's textbook WP:SYNTH. In the absence of reliable sources, that speculation - and it is speculation, cannot be allowed stand uncited in the article. In fact, it's a borderline oversight issue as it meets the criteria as non-public, personal information - Alison ❤ 23:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a place where primary sources are used, or a place for the product of someone's amateur 'sleuthing' regarding the personal lives of others; it's wholly inappropriate - Alison ❤ 23:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is no prohibition of primary sources at WP, provided they are used cautiously. Getting things correct and verifiable is the main thing. Carrite (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not said how the statement is a violation of WP:BLP. Could you provide the relevant text there that you believe applies here?

Note that what you are removing is a REQUEST for a citation. How do we know it's non-public information unless we invite people to see if it is. That's what the "cn" tag is asking for. Please note as well that I added the "cn" tag after someone else simply asserted the name Daniel as fact.

You've left the entry is a bizarre state, since her identity as Daniel is basic to other statements it makes and, most obvious of all, the second listing under "Publications". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • WP:OVERSIGHT #1 includes "identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.". Short of a specific statement from Allyson Robinson that her prior name is whatever, I believe this qualifies. Certainly Allyson is a transgender woman, her advocacy is public, but anyone who has a private past name would be, in view, entitled under our policies to privacy on that basis unless the equivalence between the two names was public and rock solid. I have not found sources that reach that bar. Now, I do think the research is likely correct, I simply believe that that's the wrong question. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think her names qualify as pseudonymous or anonymous. This is a name change and I still see no harm, esp in that she has identified herself very clearly with her past at USMA etc. I thought I was being respectful of the IP editor or editors -- with whom I have here on Talk and in editing the entry disagreed -- by allowing the "cn" tag for a while. So someone needs to edit the entry to remove info based on the Daniel identification. We essentially ID her as Daniel by inference through the citations. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Birth name should be part of a proper biography here. Carrite (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In cases where a gender variant person was not notable under their prior name [as is the case with Allyson Robinson] , but has subsequently confirmed a different gender identity [as is the case with Allyson Robinson, who repeatedly shares details that she was a male cadet at West Point and married a female cadet classmate named Danyelle Robinson and fathered 4 children with Danyelle and served as an army officer while a male and then as an ordained minister as a male], the prior name should be limited to the main article [which is what has been done in this article]. There is likely no need to bring attention to this by adding to the lede or an infobox [which is not being done here]." Source: Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Guidelines (bracketed info added).
The reason we have prohibitions against using certain types of legal records for BLPs (WP:BLPPRIMARY), and why we treat privacy of personal information so strongly is that publication of private identifying information often comes with financial and/or personal consequences. With respect to OVERSIGHT #1, I see no reason to read "pseudonymous or anonymous" narrowly. I see the point being made as applying to anyone who has a private prior name, such as children adopted at a young age, or people who changed their names as part of a witness protection program, or what have you. The place where I think there is quite a bit of room for discussion here is on just how private her former name is. I happen to think it's still on the private side of the bar, but as a matter of basic "Do I think it's true?", yeah, I think a decent case has been made. The question is not, as Carrite suggests, "is a birth name encyclopedic?" The question is, in my view, "is it encyclopedic when it's private?", and "is it in fact private?"--questions which I personally answer "no" and "probably yes", respectively. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm seeing is one, single obscure reference for a previous name and that's simply not enough. And I agree with Joe Decker above that it's simply not of any encyclopedic value. Certainly, WP:BLP takes priority here - Alison ❤ 17:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines cited about glbt names don't contradict wp:blp. As a matter of fact the guidelines respect wp:blp. A public figure who is a transgender activist and talks frequently about their prior identity and credentials earned under the prior identity has no expectation of privacy about that prior identity, especially when they keep publicizing the continuity of their marriage. The prior identity is vital to knowing this person and the basis for their activism. It is not tangential to the person's publuc bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.154.213 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop whitewashing the controversial and documented portions of this biography.[edit]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.131.88 (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need more than your word that Robinson is "controversial", reliable sources need to make that case. And the rest of the material you are injecting is already in the article so you are only repeating it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the third paragraph in the intro is repeated below in the career section, so I can support deleting it in the intro. I will also cite an article that notes that her tenure was controversial. I suggest we not use a pronoun when using the last name removes any confusion for the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.131.88 (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources don't support stormy or controversial although tabloid journalists might use that phrasing. Instead it shows Robinson inherited a bad situation with two organizations merging while both losing their funding and she lost her job along with everyone else, unsurprisingly the main goal was to overturn DADT, and that was accomplished. And pronoun usage is to refer to Robinson as she/her throughout her life. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robinson's tenure and departure are described in the LGBT press as: embattled, controversial, lightning rod, chaos, turmoil, breakdown, upheaval.
"When you become a __lightning rod__, whether or not you’re really to blame, the mature thing in politics is often simply, and sadly, to resign. Of course, Allyson Robinson, the other __lightning rod__, is still on the job." http://americablog.com/2013/07/outserve-sldn-co-chair-steps-down.html
"The transgender group of OutServe-Servicemembers Legal Defense Network announced Monday that it is cutting ties with the __embattled__ organization, partnering with a new splinter group formed in the wake of a public __controversy__... A separate statement also issued Monday announced that OutServe-SLDN's Military Transgender Group is formally cutting ties with the organization in the wake of widely-reported upheaval that saw OutServe-SLDN's newly appointed executive director, transgender Army veteran Allyson Robinson, asked to resign..." http://www.advocate.com/politics/military/2013/07/22/transgender-group-leaves-outserve-sldn-joins-startup-group-sparta
"In the wake of the __controversy__, three of the 21 board members resigned, and two senior staffers tendered their resignations in solidarity with Robinson. Robinson declined to comment in the days following the public __breakdown__... Sue Fulton, who sent the email that sparked the __controversy__, maintains that she proposed the motion for Robinson’s eventual resignation as an alternative to a harsher motion demanding that Robinson step down immediately." http://www.advocate.com/politics/military/2013/07/30/what-really-happened-when-outserve-sldn-came-undone
"After a week of public __chaos__ and inner __turmoil__, the LGBT military group OutServe-SLDN will be appointing a new board of directors." http://www.advocate.com/politics/military/2013/07/04/outserve-sldn-restructure-josh-seefried-resign
Although the actual words are technically in the stories you are linking, they are being lifted out of context, and we have to be neutral and report the context. Very few actually describe Robinson as controversial at all. And the longer articles spell out pretty much what we have. That she inherited an organization that was split and losing funding, that she had to make staff cuts, etc. In fact that so many resigned on the wake of the scandal of the memo leak in support of her speaks to how respected she was. However the sources also report denials that transphobia had any part. I also didn't include anything about Sparta as I don't see Robinson directly tied to it. I do appreciate you presenting more sources however none of them spell out that what we have isn't accurate. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The context is all there - read it. Robinson's tenure was fraught with controversy, she was such a lightning rod that the organization had a public meltdown. My edits make the article MORE accurate and informative to the reader - and don't whitewash the undeniable major controversy that swirled around Robinson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.131.88 (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read all the sources you provided, they don't support that she was as controversial as you say. If you still disagree then you can ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see if something else should be written. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure how reliable The Advocate is as a source, whether it's more akin to The Times, the Daily Mail or The Sun. I do know, however, that edit warring over it is not the way to resolve the dispute, and that putting loaded terms in the lead is just unacceptable, no matter how many sources you throw at it. At best you can say that Robinson is described as controversial by a specific person, but not in the lead, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"At best you can say..." - please cite the policy that backs up your assertion. I have seen plenty of articles where the adjective controversial is used in the lead due to several articles describing a controversy the subject was part of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.131.88 (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources put forth don't support labeling this living person as controversial. They don't even support labeling her short tenure as controversial, they just don't. BTW The Advocate is plenty reliable as a source. If these sources were universally criticizing her role as exec. director we should share that information but they don't do that. They describe a tough time for the group which was losing donations then hired her to try to fix the problems created by merging two distinct groups that then lost their focus (DADT). She isn't blamed for the group's decline and we can't state that she is without strong sourcing to back that up. If you have new sources we can certainly look to using them. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of Godwin's Law, not even Hitler is described as "controversial" in his lead. And that's a good article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rank?[edit]

Does anyone know what rank she served as? Asarelah (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I learned her rank and added it with citation. Asarelah (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reversion[edit]

Having been reverted by TheGracefulSlick when adding Category:LGBT Baptists, I figure I should bring the matter to the talk page. What is your rationale for the category's exclusion, TheGracefulSlick? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having been reverted again by El cid, el campeador with the edit summary "She seems to fit the bill", I have to ask, what does that mean? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest with you I meant to accept your edit :S Sorry! add it again and I will accept, unless thegracefulslick has a reason it should be kept out.‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 03:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Allyson Robinson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allyson_Robinson&oldid=1198893818"