Talk:Lia Thomas

Discussion, consensus

An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. - Raul654

I started the article and tried to make it neutral. It includes a sensitive topic. It is beneficial to discuss changes and try to find consensus on controversial elements of the article. Topjur01 (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I am confused as to why you quoted my user page, Topjur01. I think the article is a good start, and pretty neutral. I added the blp ds notice above because, as you mention, it includes a sensitive topic. Hope you didn't feel it was passive-aggresive or anything ^u^ A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi A._C._Santacruz, I read your quote earlier today, and I love it. I think every wikipedia editor should read it and keep it in mind. It guided me when I was trying to make the article neutral. Topjur01 (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree, it's a fantastic quote :D A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If the article was neutral at its start, it is not neutral any more. Someone removed all statements and doubts of prominent sportsmen and sports magazines, as well as scientific research. Topjur01 (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The scientific research was better placed in an article about Transgender people in sports, and the statements were summarized into generalized sentences which probably brings it more in line with MOS:QUOTE than affect its neutrality, Topjur01. It's not like their doubts have been erased, and if any citations were removed you can add them back without affecting the text. Rab V and Firefangledfeathers courtesy pinging you in case you'd like to expand on my explanation. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

First name

Prior to transitioning, (i.e., when born, then growing up as a kid, then swimming on the men's teams, etc.), I assume Thomas was known by some other name ... not Lia ... correct? This should be included. I think. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro no. See MOS:DEADNAME. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know all the "in's and out's" of all these technical rules. But, didn't Thomas swim -- publicly, as a public figure -- for some male swim teams ... high school, college, whatever? I assume so. Is all of that "past history" erased and off-limits? I don't know all the Wiki rules. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

She was not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article prior to her transition, therefore there is no compelling reason to include her deadname. Funcrunch (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't really my question. This article is a biography of a person. That "life" / "biography" did not begin at the moment that Thomas transitioned. It began at birth. My question was: But, didn't Thomas swim -- publicly, as a public figure -- for some male swim teams ... high school, college, whatever? I assume so. Is all of that "past history" erased and off-limits? That was my question. And, since the entire controversy surrounds the topic of swimming on men's or women's teams ... Thomas's swimming history (on men's and women's teams) is certainly relevant. We should pretend that "nothing happened" in Thomas's life, before the transition? That's my question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The short answer: yes. The long answer: there is no need to add her deadname to the article, as including it is not relevant to the rest of the article's content and would just serve to harass the subject. I recommend you read MOS:IDINFO for an in-depth history as to how not including a trans person's deadname in articles unless notable under the deadname reached community consensus. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... ok ... Just so I'm clear. We're publishing a biography of a person in an encyclopedia. And we're not "allowed" to mention the person's name? And we're not allowed to mention any history prior to the transition date of 2019? And we call that a "biography"? LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That is correct, we should not add their deadname unless necessary. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Says who? You don't see the "irony" in that "rule"? LOL. Who says it is "unnecessary" ... (in this specific case)? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro as someone with as many edits and as much experience as you have on Wikipedia I am seriously surprised at your views on a MOS guideline with very strong community consensus backing it. I won't continue interacting in this thread as I genuinely don't see the point in doing so as the discussion seems to have reached its natural end. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You said: The guideline says not to add a dead-name unless necessary. In response, I said: Where was it determined -- and by whom -- that in this particular case (Lia Thomas), the dead-name is or is not necessary? Seems like a valid and legitimate question, and a natural follow-up. Not sure what the problem is. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It was decided by large community WP:RFCs at the talk page of MOS:BIO. Unless Lia Thomas met the standards of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO before transition and we just had neglected to have an article - which seems very unlikely - then the community's consensus is not to include it. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It was decided as a policy in general. Nothing was decided -- by anyone -- in this particular case. Hence, I brought it to this Talk Page. Appropriately. Having a policy (in general), is one thing. Applying that policy -- or not -- (in a specific case), is another. It's a valid and legitimate question, appropriate for this Talk Page. Related point ... I was "told" above that this bio "cannot" contain any info prior to 2109 (transition). Therefore, we cannot say that Thomas was born in 1999; was born in Texas; went to such-and-such high school; swam on the high school team; etc. Everything before 2019 must be deleted ... correct? In this, um, "biography". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: You were not "told" that this bio cannot contain any info prior to 2019. You asked about including her deadname, and the MOS:GENDERID policy and its application to this particular article were explained to you. Asked and answered. I do not believe you are acting in good faith at this point. Funcrunch (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Read above. Quote: That wasn't really my question. This article is a biography of a person. That "life" / "biography" did not begin at the moment that Thomas transitioned. It began at birth. My question was: But, didn't Thomas swim -- publicly, as a public figure -- for some male swim teams ... high school, college, whatever? I assume so. Is all of that "past history" erased and off-limits? That was my question. And, since the entire controversy surrounds the topic of swimming on men's or women's teams ... Thomas's swimming history (on men's and women's teams) is certainly relevant. We should pretend that "nothing happened" in Thomas's life, before the transition? That's my question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC). Reply: The short answer: yes. The long answer: there is no need to add her deadname to the article, as including it is not relevant to the rest of the article's content and would just serve to harass the subject. I recommend you read MOS:IDINFO for an in-depth history as to how not including a trans person's deadname in articles unless notable under the deadname reached community consensus. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Bottom line ... Thomas's swimming bio / history (teams, schools, divisions, awards, records, etc.) is certainly relevant and germane to this article. It's a biography of a swimmer! Furthermore, the entire crux of the controversy -- cited an millions of reliable sources -- is whether Thomas should swim on a male team or female team. So, no, the Thomas bio does not "begin" in 2019. Having a Wikipedia "policy" does not trump facts, reliable sources, and ... ummm ... common sense. In any event, it's an appropriate topic for this Talk Page. Regardless of your "beliefs" in my good faith. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Some people get really incensed about trans people's reasonable concerns around privacy. Good thing the community has already settled this and I see no new arguments here for why this article should be any different than every other article that follows wikipedia policy on the matter. Rab V (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: I read the whole talk page before responding to you; you don't need to quote it. A._C._Santacruz was clearly referring only to Lia Thomas's deadname, not to the rest of her life before gender transition, in her responses to you. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Funcrunch (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This section was opened specifically asking about Lia Thomas's name: I assume Thomas was known by some other name ... not Lia ... correct? This should be included. This has been answered. Note that this article already does discuss Thomas's early life, and does without mentioning the name Thomas was using at that time, as per guidelines. If any one of the three editors had thought that Everything before 2019 must be deleted ... correct? as you seem to think they do, they could have deleted that section. But they didn't. No one has, so it appears that your objections that information about her pre-transition life should not be deleted is a disagreement you are having with nobody. (And your disagreement with the name issue has been thoroughly addressed.) Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

She won 2nd place in Ivy League swimming competitions at the college level. If you look up the records, the only way to verify it is if you know her birth name. Otherwise, there is zero way of proving that those accomplishments did or did not happen. Getting a 2nd place medal at the collegiate level is "notable". Just because nobody chose to write an article about her past accomplishments is another story.

Why is a woman's maiden name published? For example, if you read the article "George Washington", Martha Washington is listed as "Martha Dandridge", but 99% of the people in the world if you say the name Martha Dandridge would not know who you are talking about, but would know who you are talking about if you say "Martha Washington". There is definitely a redirect article to "Martha Washington" from "Martha Dandridge, and the article definitely says "Born Martha Dandridge June 2, 1731[1]" And she was definitely NOT notable BEFORE she married George Washington, and she would never have been notable if she had not married George Washington. Why has this practice been standard and acceptable since the beginning of Wikipedia, February 2003 for Martha Washington's Article and July 2002 for George Washington's article? That sounds "sexist" to me. That you have one set of standards for women and another set of standards for "men who transition to women". If they are truly "women", then they should be held to the same EXACT standards as women have been held to since the beginning of Wikipedia (and is current today), to include all histories of their names from birth to the end of their life. Once a person is notable to have a Wikipedia article about them, then basic information, like their name on their birth certificate is standard knowledge. Not to mention that she would not even make the front page if she had not transitioned, not to mention that she would not have won any of the swimming events she had won if she competed against men. 11:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.76.144 (talk)

Agreed. Bluecharmquark (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

We refer to people by the name that they are notable under. We also note people's previous names except when here is a good reason not to. In most cases we do not mention trans people's former names as it provides no significant information and it can be distressing and demeaning, and sometimes even endangering, for them. This is not normally the case for cis people's maiden names. The exception is when a trans person was notable under their previous name. Then we have to mention it so that people know that we are talking about the same person when we talk about the events before they transitioned.

So what of maiden names? (Yeah, I don't like that term either.) We include them because almost nobody finds this objectionable and it would nearly always be possible to infer it from a subject's parents' names anyway. I'm pretty sure that we would omit the maiden name for any person who was at risk of being seriously disadvantaged by it if they were not notable under that name. Personally, I'd also be fine with us extending our policies to omit maiden names of any subject who requests us to do so, unless they are notable under that previous name.

People change their names for many reasons. If their reason is a need to put a former name behind them then it is reasonable to treat that name differently from a name change on marriage. For example, if a subject were known under a name different from their birth name because their parents were in a witness protection programme, and the family were given new names, then of course we wouldn't blab the birth name causing distress and putting the subject and their family in danger. This is a privacy issue. Similarly we don't generally include people's home addresses even though it is fine to say that Joe Biden lives in the White House because that is already a widely noted fact and does nobody any harm.

As for sexism, you are right to smell sexism but that isn't coming from us. It is coming from a society that expects women to change their surnames but not men. That's not Wikipedia's fault and its certainly not a valid excuse to have a pop at trans women. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't modify this discussion. MOS:DEADNAME is a settled issue. TenorTwelve (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Prior to transitioning to female, Lia Thomas competed for the men's swimming team as Will Thomas. It seems appropriate to mention that, since the article includes mention of this person competing on Penn's men's swim team, and it's the only way to look up Lia's swim records prior to the name change. Of course, as noted, Lia was not very competitive as a male swimmer going against other men. Bluecharmquark (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Her past swimming experience is already mentioned as much as it is notable, there is no extraordinary need to include her deadname and go against established wikipedia policy. Rab V (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It is silly not to include the birth name which may still be the legal name of the person

It makes no sense to exclude mention of Lia's name prior to transitioning. It not like she had no life prior to transitioning, and the only way to find out and verify facts prior to transitioning are by looking them up using her previous name. Bluecharmquark (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't modify this discussion. MOS:DEADNAME is a settled issue. TenorTwelve (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
William is the birth name, this is factual and historic. We cannot and should not censor facts because they hurt someone's feelings. Birth names are standard throughout Wikipedia, this page should be no exception. Include "William" as the birth name. 2604:F580:14C:8000:944F:A6A3:E9DD:5A1C (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible addition

Hi Topjur01,

Very recently sixteen of her teammates issued a letter to various media organizations regarding how "...Biologically, Lia holds an unfair advantage over competition in the women’s category, as evidenced by her rankings that have bounced from #462 as a male to #1 as a female". This has been reported by RS media, such as with headline stating, "Sixteen Penn swimmers say transgender teammate Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete".

Just a suggestion. 108.34.231.7 (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added this statement. Another editor tried adding the statement too, but the change was reverted because of concerns the claim was not attributed to sources. While Deseret News, which, yes, is a reliable source considers the claim valid, I think it’s reasonable to attribute it to the anonymous swim team members who allege Lia has an unfair advantage, so I have added the statement again with proper attribution. SkylabField (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Deseret News is reliable for local news only and for issues that run afoul of LDS doctrine they need to be attributed. In this case, not being about Utah and as a LGBT-related topic, the quote would need to be attributed. I'm still concerned though that we may be including false or misleading stats since no source seems to mention what rankings the letter is referring to. Rab V (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I’ve changed the sources from being Deseret News + Washington Post to instead being CNN + Washington Post. As per both of these sources, it’s the anonymous students claiming the 462 -> 1 ranking jump, so I’m wording it as worded by these reliable sources. “Allege” might not be the best word, as per WP:ALLEGE, but I’ll use it since they don’t go in to any detail which particular rankings they use, and no reliable secondary sources have directly researched this, and we can not research it ourselves when making a Wikipedia article. SkylabField (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Changing of the term "female"

I changed the term "female swimmer" to the more biologically correct term "collegiate women's swimmer" According to Merrriam-Webster's Dictionary a female is "of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs"[1] which a transgender woman is not. The Cambridge dictionary provides a similar definition. [2] Bluesfan86 (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Both dictionaries include definitions that explicitly show females also refer to trans women. Also per wiki policy MOS:GENDERID female is also a correct term for trans women. Rab V (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"Female" can refer to sex or to gender, depending on context. In this context it is being used to refer to gender, so there is not a factual issue with the text. However, as some people prefer to keep "woman" referring exclusively to gender and "female" referring exclusively to sex, "collegiate women's swimmer" is probably clearer for readers. Endwise (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No, 'female' refers exclusively to sex. The corresponding gender is 'feminine'. Thomas is not female. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, Fahrenheit. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Endwise, there's no need to bend our backs so much when just "female" is clear enough. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

They are both fine. Endwise (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

She's on the "women's" team, so "collegiate women's swimmer" is self-consistent. That identifies her significance and context; it's unrelated to saying she "is a woman" or "is female", discussing the person as a person. DMacks (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2022

In section "transgender status and swimming," change "Thomas finished 6th place in the 100m freestyle race, losing to four cisgender women and one transgender man transitioning from female to male (without hormones), Iszac Henig" to "Thomas finished 6th place in the 100m freestyle race, losing to four cisgender women and Iszac Henig, a transgender man (transitioning from female to male without hormone therapy)." Tayuro (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

✅ Done. Thanks for the suggestion! -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2022

Under “swimming” Thomas is quoted as swimming for “Penn State” which is a different university than the “University of Pennsylvania”. 107.127.49.142 (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for catching that. Funcrunch (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It says “member of the LGBTQ+”

If someone with the permissions could please change this to “member of the LGBTQ+ population” or similar, I would appreciate it. 2601:600:9A80:2360:4033:BA26:FE3F:74C6 (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I just took it out as her sexuality didn't seem that relevant. Maybe others would disagree though. Endwise (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I could see this being a category. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The IP was referring to Erica Sullivan, who we included a quote from, not Lia Thomas. Endwise (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Not correct

This article is written not reflecting the individual’s current gender identity. This needs to be rewritten. 71.121.252.121 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? X-Editor (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There had been some disruptive edits in the article at the time the IP left this message. Those have been fixed. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying! X-Editor (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

Change the pronouns and do not use the dead name. It is Lia, not William. And her pronouns are she/her. 92.247.187.191 (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)