Talk:James Barry (surgeon)

"The British Army, seeking to suppress the story, sealed all records of Barry for the next 100 years."

I challenged the assertion "The British Army, seeking to suppress the story, sealed all records of Barry for the next 100 years." and an editor has asked me to expand here. Basically British records which contain personal information (such as census records) are closed for 100 years by law for obvious privacy reasons. In fact, until the Public Records Act 1958, there was no right to inspect government records at all, so "sealed all records" is a misnomer. Atchom (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Per the source, Appalled by the idea, army officials locked away Barry's service records for a hundred years and hoped the story would go away. Do you have a reliable source stating otherwise? If you prefer, we can adjust the wording to match the source a bit closer, perhaps "The British Army, seeking to suppress the story, sealed Barry's service records for the next 100 years." How does that strike you?

As an aside, I do wish you'd discussed on the talkpage before reintroducing a challenged edit per the typical WP:BRD cycle. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I would also agree that a better source is needed for the assertion that the army tried to "suppress" anything related to Barry or that it sealed Barry's records specifically for 100 years. Frankly it just seems like sensationalist writing. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Should Dr. James Barry's deadname be used in the article?

In the first line, it shows the name that Dr. Barry was assigned at birth. If he was born in the present day, there is no way a Wikipedia article would document him with his birth name before transitioning to a man. If the double standard should be justified, why? JDBauby (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in order to hold Barry to the standards put forth by MOS:GID, Wikipedia editors would have to come to a clear consensus that Barry was a trans man. This is tricky for Barry specifically because a goodly amount of the verifiable sources refer to him as female (see, for example, du Preez and Dronfeld's Dr James Barry: A Woman Ahead of Her Time). Barry being male may be obvious to you and I, but this being Wikipedia, we need reliable sources to back that up. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

MOS:GID & MOS:DEADNAME specifically state If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page ... Note that this policy applies to the living (& probably the recently deceased like Sophie). Barry has been dead for over 1½ centuries. The subject of Barry's birth name & pronouns has been discussed repeatedly here & here & the consensus has been to include the former & eschew the latter for use of the surname. There is a possibility, as discussed that Gender and personal life section that Barry had a sexual relationship with Lord Charles, which could be construed as heterosexual. What seems certain was that Barry wanted to be a military surgeon at a time when both the British military & British medical school were closed to women. I think that there is more of a feminist than transgender perspective here, that Barry did what it took to become a military surgeon, & that required assuming a male identity.

Please check the talk pages of historical transgender biographies before making such changes. I think it would also be wise to read the Wikipedia:Recentism essay to consider what impacts an anochronistic approach & selective omission would have on the accuracy of an article or even its reason for being. If one took out the birth gender information about Albert Cashier, Amelio Robles Ávila, or Billy Tipton, one would be removing the primary reason for the subjects' notability. Peaceray (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"I have asked 65.92.127.4 to take this to the talk page, but this editor has not responded" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peaceray

well that was a blatant lie...

but ok, here I am talking about it *again...* would https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peaceray care to answer the question I already asked? or are they trying to start an edit war? 65.92.127.4 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Noting that I asked 65.92.127.4 to take this to this talk page with these edits:

• here where I stated As WP:BRD suggests, please address this on the talk page before attempting these edits again.
• here where I wrote in the edit summary As WP:BRD suggests, discuss on the talk page before making further changes of this sort.
• I placed the {{uw-ew}} warning here on User talk:65.92.127.4. This warning states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors.

I leave it up to the reader's assessment as to the veracity of 65.92.127.4's claim that my statement was a blatent lie.

Peaceray (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I already answered 65.92.127.4 with my response here

You know that you have violated WP:CONSENSUS in this matter because you removed a comment in the Wikitext that specifically addressed the type of edits that you made.

This is the text that 65.92.127.4 removed without any edit summary:

<!-- NOTE: Due to the circumstances of Barry's life, this article avoids the use of gendered pronouns (see Talk page).

This article refers to Barry as "Barry" wherever possible, avoiding specifically male or female third person pronouns.-->

Relevant discussion concerning this occurs throughout Talk:James Barry (surgeon)/Archive 1 & specifically in the Talk:James Barry (surgeon)/Archive 1#A New Solution to the Pronouns Issue section. Peaceray (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm pretty okay with revisiting a five-year-old consensus. I'd also argue we should use male pronouns for Barry, for a pretty basic reason: while he wasn't very clear about what his gender identity was in his heart, he was quite clear that he wanted people to think of him as a man even after his death, as communicated by multiple statements of his directing people not to examine his body after death. As far as I'm concerned, his motivation for saying this is irrelevant: whether his motivation was hiding a secret or because Barry regarded himself as fully a man, we ought to take his wishes at face value and refer to him as a man. Loki (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Loki, my thinking roughly matches yours. I'd suggest starting a new discussion. This section is technically about a different issue, and it's got some baggage besides. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

My sense is that the more recent sources are more consistent in using male pronouns for Barry, as well. Newimpartial (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Though of course many participants here remember it, just so everyone is aware, there was an RfC not that long ago about this, located here: Talk:James Barry (surgeon)/Archive 2#Request for comment: Pronouns. My own position that male pronouns should not be used was explained at length there and remains unchanged. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The part suggesting that Barry could be his sister's biological parent should be removed.

I removed this section because it is baseless and therefore irrelevant. I think my edit being reversed is the wrong decision, for there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Barry went through anything suggested in this section. Ideas that are not based on reality should not be proposed in Wikipedia, for, even if they are quickly followed up by assertion that there is no proof, it has already placed the idea of legitimacy in people's minds. If there is no proof for something and it is purely imagined, why should it be posted? Should Wikipedia be filled with people writing whatever comes to their mind and then following up these statements with "unproven." I believe that this section on Barry is purely sensational fiction and should not be given any form of legitimacy. 37.158.9.191 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)