Jump to content

Talk:Laverne Cox

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 137.118.161.59 (talk) at 00:04, 17 February 2022 (→‎article links: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

No birth name

Isn't a birth name an absolute necessity of a BIOGRAPHY? Facts don't care about feelings and it's the duty of editors to report the facts. Any special treatment destroys the integrity of the article and the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.132.13 (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My viewpoint is similar to yours (except not as emphatic) but the community has decided otherwise. Please see MOS:BIRTHNAME --NeilN talk to me 00:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Guidelines regarding birth names of trans individuals. In fact, birth name is not forbidden, and the guideline of not having it in the lead sentence is a result of a single editor's assertion, not community discussion. Furthermore, the assertion was based on articles that did not even support the viewpoint in question; they merely said that a person should be referred to by their given name, similarly to a celebrities who have changed their names. The idea of omitted the birth name all together is a misinterpretation of guidelines (not policy), which was formed unilaterally, and, in turn, based on a misinterpretation of advocacy material. Calbaer (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"the guideline of not having it in the lead sentence is a result of a single editor's assertion, not community discussion" is simply false. It was added based on the consensus of a community discussion. -sche (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what anybody thinks about the rule about transgender people's birth names, the fact here is that we don't have any reliably sourceable birth name to provide. There have been unverified claims about her birth name made on the web, I won't deny that, but they have never been verified by any reliable source that would ever be acceptable referencing for any information in any Wikipedia article — the claim derives from Twitter tweets and user-generated discussion forums, not from any acceptable reliable source ever having confirmed it on the record. And no, birth names aren't an absolute necessity of a biography — regardless of whether a subject is cis or trans or whatever else, we still can't include a birth name that we can't properly source. See for example Nancy Diamond, a cisgender woman best known by her married name, but whose maiden name we don't know because reliable sources about her simply haven't ever publicized it at all — all we've ever had is an anonymous IP making an unverified claim on the talk page about the surname of a person they claimed, but didn't even actually show the sources to prove, was her brother, which is not enough. And the fact that Nancy Diamond's birth name isn't present in her article either proves that trans people aren't getting special treatment here: unverified claims about what a person's birth name was are not enough to get the birth name included in a Wikipedia article, regardless of the subject's gender identity. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to see if anyone would object if I found what appeared to be a reliable source. Is anything wrong with this? I did not put it in the lead because I figured if it wasn't controversial it would be there. The problem with the early life section was that none of the sources I saw on my first try appeared to be reliable sources for something controversial. Then I found one eventually. If you object, it could only be because the person saw what was out there online and didn't make a clear effort to verify the information. And this is possible, I suppose.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Marie Paradox:

Hi Vchimpanzee,
I left the alert after your recent edit at the Laverne Cox article and could not find any evidence that anyone had yet alerted you to the fact that BLPs are a current area of conflict. (And because I do not want to be responsible for unintended innuendo, the article falls into the area of conflict because Laverne Cox is alive.) If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask!
-- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 01:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I thought this was about Robert Mandan and my problem with the template. My edit to Laverne Cox was because I wondered what her name was as a man. I felt that this was important enough to be in the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was not going to mention my thoughts on your specific revision because regardless of how you had edited the article, it would have been a good time to post the discretionary sanctions alert. (After all the alert is a notice and not a warning. Hopefully the new version of the template, which was revised after I posted to your talk page, makes that clearer.)
But since you brought it up, I thought it was poor form to unilaterally decide to make a change when discussion about just such a change has been taking place on the talk page off and on for more than four years, and no consensus has been reached to change the article, and the article has been subjected to notorious disruptive editing. I believe the least you could do for your fellow editors is to go to the talk page and, if you have not done so already, read all the info boxes at the top of the page, familiarize yourself with the discussion about edits like yours, and explain why you made your edit. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 02:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought if anyone objected they would revert. I didn't put it in the lead because I figured it might be controversial or the information would have been there. But there seemed to be no reason not to put the information in the section on early life, once I found a source that appeared reliable. At first I didn't see a RELIABLE source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you did revert, but I don't agree with your logic. The issue on the talk page seems to be whether we can verify the name. There is a chance the source just got it from somewhere. But I don't see where the guideline linked to justifies the edit. If the person was not notable under the former name, i can see leaving it out of the lead. I don't see where leaving the former name out entirely is justified.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If your argument is that the policy does not seem to apply to all trans people, I agree. But in this case it applies because Laverne Cox was, as you put it, "not notable under" her former name. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 15:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on whether "'not notable under' her former name" means we can ever use it if the source is reliable. That just doesn't make sense..— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably be doing this on Talk:Laverne Cox anyway. Would it be okay to move the entire discussion there?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer to continue this conversation on the talk page, that is more than okay with me. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 16:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant everything already said here should be there as well, starting where I first mentioned Laverne Cox.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to that. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 16:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (copied from MOS talk page) The problem here is less about the Manual of Style and more about this being an article about a living person. Policy outweighs MOS. Also, the source is not that strong as it is a passing mention on entertainment news on a lesser known news website. This basically falls within the scope of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy. This is contentious material that was only referenced through one source. Multiple strong sources are required. Also more specifically is Privacy of Names which states; "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." Since Lavern Cox herself is a public figure some might argue this does not apply but since we are technically discussing two different subjects in some manner as the prior name represents the subject as a private person before she became the person she is now, we can assume the name was not necessarily meant to be made public. The section on Public Figures states; "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." This does not apear to be widely published. Privacy of Names also states (in regards to the sourcing used here); "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories".
At them moment I don't believe that the inclusion of the name meets required policy standards for Biographies of living Persons and that this particular issue is not an MOS issue. Aloha!
Good argument. I don't know that the source is "lesser known" but the type of article certainly doesn't meet the standard and I was too quick to assume it would be all right because it was in a respected newspaper. But I knew I was reluctant because of the type article it was. I didn't get reverted until I started discussing it with User:Marie Paradox because I was trying to understand something she posted on my talk page. But it wasn't an objection to the specific edit.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why include a name that no longer identifies her?

I've been seeing a lot of people ask why we do not include a name that no longer identifies Laverne Cox. But why should we? Wikipedia is not a repository for everything but the WP:KITCHENSINK. There are people who think we should include celebrities' heights in their articles, but we do not do that unless it is part of what makes them notable. Laverne Cox's former name does not make her notable; in fact by the time she became notable she was no longer using the name. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 17:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the people who has been tempted over the years to include all the trivia we can find. I understand now why that shouldn't be the case. One reason was that I had slow Internet at home and I was reluctant for a long time to go to unfamiliar sites there. I just don't see why knowing what her name was before she made the change is a problem. Although it's no trouble to find it elsewhere.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a matter of knowing the information, it is about whether the subject intended the wide publication of a previous identity, not just a name, and whether criteria from our policy on Living Persons has been met for inclusion. In the older discussion I went to check the first source that had the mention of the subjects previous name and it had been removed. We can't know exactly why it was removed so I don't suggest an archived copy of the web source be attempted in this case.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Names that no longer identify people" -- i.e., birth names -- are among the most routinely included biographical details. Honestly, I think that if it comes across that it's impolite to include nouns or the letter e when writing about transgender people, editors here will put forth serious arguments that Wiki style writing really doesn't require those things anyway, so it's just best to leave them out. 63.229.174.237 (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Birth names are "routinely" included in Wikipedia articles if they can be reliably sourced. They are not "routinely" included in Wikipedia articles on the basis of unreliable sources, gossip blogs or unsourced claims of "I knew her personally back in the day", which are the only types of referencing that have ever been attempted or shown here. This isn't a uniquely transgender issue, either — there are also lots of cisgender people in the world (adoptees, women who took their husband's last name at marriage, etc.) who are not currently known by their actual birth names, but whose actual birth names are unsourceable and therefore not included in their Wikipedia articles either. For any person, regardless of their gender identity, we include such information only if it can be reliably sourced. And, no, the idea that it's somehow uniquely more important to publish the birth names of transgender people than anybody else, such that our rule about verifiability in reliable sources would be waived just because the importance of people getting to know her deadname somehow superseded any other Wikipedia rule, is not on. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article is a mini-biography of the person. Almost all wikipedia articles I've seen on individuals includes their life history, starting from their birth. In this case, Laverne Cox was born [redact unverified claim] and there is nothing wrong with that. It is an interesting fact about the person as to who they used to be and who they've become. How many actors, singers, politicians, etc., have changed their name for the sake of advancing their careers? Madonna has her full name listed as does Cher, Rihanna, Bono, Rodney Dangerfield... I can go on. and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on. Hobbamock (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have reliable sources which verify the full and/or real names of Madonna, Cher, Rihanna, Bono and Rodney Dangerfield. We do not have any reliable source which verifies the birth name of Laverne Cox — we have only unverified claims in unreliable sources, which is not good enough to justify making the claim here. Again, we do not add people's birth names to their articles on the basis of unreliable sources claiming knowledge that isn't verified — we add people's birth names to their articles only when we can find reliable sources for the information. There are lots of people in the world who are not known by their original birth names, but for whom we can't find a source to establish what their birth name really was — there are lots of notable women, for example, who took their husband's surname at marriage without their birth surnames ever making it into any reliable sources at all — and when that happens, we don't include their birth names in their articles. So until such time as a reliable source can be found to properly support what some people claim Laverne Cox's birth name to be, this is not a "we know for a properly sourced fact that Madonna's full name is Madonna Louise Ciccone, so we can say that" situation — it's a "no source can be found at all to establish what Nancy Diamond's maiden name was, so we can't say anything" situation. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take the article for Teller for instance. It states in the opening that he was born Raymond Joseph Teller, but he has legally changed his name to just Teller. He no longer identifies with his birth name but it is still listed.98.171.55.130 (talk)
Which remains not relevant to the point. The reason Laverne Cox's birth name is not in the article is not that she's getting special transgender-specific protection, or that she doesn't "identify" with it — it's that we do not have any reliable sources to support what some people have claimed her birth name to be. It's the same reason why Nancy Diamond's article does not include her birth name — it's not being obscured for ideological reasons, we just don't have any valid or reliable published sources to establish what it was. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, it's completely ideological. Her birth name was ****. 208.126.201.53 (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "ideology" involved. What there is, is a complete and total lack of any reliable sources that verify this claim at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A good compromise in this situation would be to state in the header something along the lines of "born a male, but whose birth name remains unknown" - thereby acknowledging two facts: (i) that she was not born female and (ii) at the same time refraining from giving an unverified birth name. 146.66.63.52 (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found her birth year in a reliable source

According to Biography.com, Cox's birth year is 1984. X-Editor (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, WP:RSPS says "There is no consensus on the reliability of Biography.com. Some editors consider the source to be reliable because of its backing from A&E Networks and references to the website in news media. Others point to discrepancies between information on Biography.com and on more established sources, and an unclear fact-checking process." -sche (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a set of public records that are compiled from various sources (property tax, licenses of various kinds, and other types of formally gathered records provided to governmental and similar authorities). In themselves, their reliability increases in proportion with the frequency of the same identifiers in different sources.
Laverne Cox is listed on several sets of those records, one of which can be seen at this web address; the records include her date of birth and versions of her name: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KVKX-7RP. The date of birth listed is 29 May 1972.
Twistlethrop (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, you are not allowed to dig into genealogical resources to find any birthdate not already reflected in published media coverage. Even if the media coverage is completely wrong, then our job is to be wrong too until the media coverage changes. Find a newspaper article or forget about it; FamilySearch is flat-out never an acceptable source for any Wikipedia content under any circumstances; that source is also under the name that has been claimed by unreliable sources, but never once verified by any remotely reliable source, as being Laverne Cox's birth name — which means it flatly fails to verify itself as even referring to Laverne at all, since no credible source has ever actually verified that name as accurate. That reference is a hard no, and this is not up for so much as an ounce of debate — our job is to follow the media coverage, not to publish original genealogical research not already reflected in existing media coverage. Even if the media coverage is wrong, our job still isn't to dig into primary sources to independently reinvestigate its wrongness, but to simply and uncritically be wrong too until such time as the media coverage corrects itself. Wikipedia is not an investigative journalism project: it is not our job to dig into primary source records to reverify whether the media are right or wrong about stuff that impacts on people's privacy rights. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will say two things. Firstly, that "if the media coverage is wrong, our job" is "to simply and uncritically be wrong", then WP is itself an unreliable source. Secondly, rather than pander to the notion that FamilySearch is a primary source (it is not), and responding at length to your already overlong response about the whole thing, I intend to ignore it and instead note the advice at WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#FamilySearch which effectively precludes its use as a source. Twistlethrop (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Twistlethrop: Wikipedia is a tertiary source: our role as a source is to act as a summary of what various secondary sources say about the topic. If they don't report a piece of information, we shouldn't report it. If they report it wrong, we either follow along with them or omit it. Wikipedia's role as a source in a school paper is about the same as Encyclopaedia Britannica's role was when I was in school: use it to find basic information for yourself and to find other sources, but cite those other sources, not the encyclopedia, in your paper. —C.Fred (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from primary sources saying otherwise, there's waaaay too much suspect about the claims of her being born in 1984 to present it as fact, like her being "a regular on the '90s club scene in New York".--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody in this discussion has said they believe she was born in 1984. But that's not the point. The point is that Wikipedians are not allowed to dig into primary source genealogical or civil or court records to discover or reveal biographical information about an article subject (a person's real birth date, their birth name, their arrest record, etc.) that has not already been published in secondary source media coverage. Wikipedia does not write or publish or report original research; our role begins and ends at summarizing the media coverage that exists, and does not include digging into civil records to independently reinvestigate whether the media coverage is right or wrong. The article already doesn't say Cox was born 1984 — it gives no birth year at all — but it still cannot say 1972 until one or more journalists say 1972 in published media coverage from newspapers, magazines or books. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An interview today in The Hollywood Reporter mentions that she turned 40 in 2012 and is 47 this year, which would put her birth year at 1972. HarashoEli (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that Hollywood Reporter is considered an RS per WP:RSP, and, unless I am mistaken, should probably be fine for sourcing her birth yearAmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's much more like the kind of source we needed. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood Reporter is a valid, non-Original-Research source, especially since it's an interview in which she openly discusses her 40th birthday (7 years ago). I guess she has decided to reveal her birth year (but not her birth name, so let's not even go there). Aroundthewayboy (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Middle name

Why isn't her middle name mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable source mentions her middle name? —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

article links

I do not know why instant, graphical, and prurient pics appear in this article for genital reconstruction? Who is this helping?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laverne_Cox&oldid=1072296605"