Talk:Billy Tipton

Untitled

Archive: Talk:Billy Tipton/Archive 1

Comment 1

I went ahead and removed the absurd repetition of "Tipton". I chose to use female pronouns for the "Early life" section and male pronouns for the rest of the article. Please, if you can't reach consensus about this, can't we just follow whatever standard there is for transgender people? All this "she wasn't really transgender" nonsense is kind of childish. Even her sexual partners thought she was male, for god's sake. What do you want her to do, impregnate someone? Please, we need pronouns. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water and dispose of pronouns altogether. (Gender-neutral pronouns, anyone?) —Daniel Brockman (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Her sexual partners thinking she was male is not relevant to whether or not she was female. Female is not an insult. Women throughout history have dressed as men and presented themselves as men. All pronouns should be female in this article. 108.12.217.146 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Pronouns

I agree that makes no sense to use male pronouns to describe this person through all stages of her life. It sounds like the use 'she' would be detrimental. She was a woman and there is no problem in describing her as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.2.212.33 (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the pronouns in association with Tipton's early life to female. It truly is not clear to me whether Tipton is better described as a trans man, as a drag king, as a genderqueer person who "crossdressed" professionally, as a woman who did what she had to do to maximize her career, or something totally different. The truth is that the world is not so cut and dried as to suggest that all people who exhibit gender-variant behavior should be immediately categorized as "trans women" and "trans men". This privileges monogendered trans identities that fit neatly into existing roles over multi-gendered, fluid-gendered, different-gendered, and other not-so-easily-categorized identities. The truth is that from the references I see, we don't know how Tipton identified over the course of zan life, and we certainly don't know which pronouns Tipton would prefer. I think there's something really ugly about insisting that "he must have been a man" just because ze dressed like one. I know plenty of people who dress like men who do it for entirely different reasons, biologically female and male alike. Let's avoid engaging in the type of revisionist history that occurs when you look at the world through monogendered lenses. Whatever404 (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Since we cannot know exactly how Tipton personally identified, the most respectful and accurate thing to do is to use the same pronouns Tipton used at various times. The previous consensus seems to have been to use female pronouns for childhood and male ones for adulthood. To use female pronouns during adulthood would implicitly push the POV that Tipton was "really" a woman. It becomes slightly confusing at the end of the "Before age 18" section when it gets to the point after Tipton started presenting as a man, but using a new section as the point to change pronouns seems like the most natural and readable demarkation. This consensus version appears to be what currently exists, so I voice my support for keeping it that way. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In an attempt to address the confusion present in the second paragraph of the section, I tried using gender-neutral pronouns in that paragraph. This seems appropriate for references to the whole of Tipton's life, because the whole of zan life included various gender presentations (and perhaps identities). Whatever404 (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, I disagree with this change and am going to revert it. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 18:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To avoid using a gender-specific pronoun when referring to the whole of Tipton's life, I have edited the problematic second paragraph to use the name "Tipton" in place of a pronoun wherever possible, and to use singular they in the three places where repetition of "Tipton" would sound odd. Whatever404 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The "singular they" is almost as jarring as totally made-up pronouns. It works in contexts which discuss a hypothetical person, but not for a specific person as in this article. There is no ideal solution in the English language, so we have to do the best we can with what we have. I personally would switch to "he" as soon as he started presenting himself as male if I was writing something myself, but in the interest of readability I still think it's best to make the switch co-incident with the beginning of a new section. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 15:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The present situation where the pronouns for Tipton are invariably male does not make sense. The article now reads as though it has been written by an apologist for those who live as persons who have a different gender to their physical one. If WP is to be anything, it should be accurate in the most simple way. If we were to interpret things by intention or representation rather than actual fact, it would be acceptable. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to support or discourage a particular lifestyle over another, but to acknowledge that a different life style exists. It is to present facts as opposed to wishes and intentions. The fact of the matter is that the psychological gender of a person is relevant, but when we are dealing with facts, the fact that is inescapable is that Tipton was born and died genetically female. There is nothing to be gained by changing this for that repeatedly to suit a particular POV. And, although it has been suggested that it might be inaccurate and a POV to represent Tipton as a woman, the actuality is very different. Tipton was genetically female who represented herself as a male by making a conscious choice to wear particular clothing. She never represented herself sexually as a male, but avoided the issue in her own way. I see nothing wrong with a person who represents him or herself as a member of the opposite gender whilst remaining essentially as born. We cannot criticize Tipton for her choices, but we also cannot represent her as something that she was not. She was a woman who chose to live as a man and there is no shame in that. If we use words that support her choice whilst ignoring the fact that she was a woman, we are concealing the truth in a way that cannot be supported. It has led the article to include inconsistencies and, instead of acknowledging the truth, hide it in ways that are open to ridicule. Here are some extracts from the article"

• Dorothy Tipton grew up in Kansas City, Missouri, where he was raised by an aunt after his parents' divorce, after which he rarely saw his father At this time Tipton was not living as a male. She was a child. Therefore it is wrong to use the male pronoun.
• He studied piano and saxophone, but his school had a policy forbidding girls from playing in the school band. The pronoun makes no sense when used alongside the statement about girls being forbidden to play in the school band.
• Tipton adopted his father's nickname, Billy, and more actively concealed his female body by breast binding and packing. "His female body" does not make sense. If a person's body is female, the correct pronoun is "Her".
• Early in his career, Tipton cross-dressed only professionally, continuing to present as a woman otherwise. He spent those early years living with a woman named Non Earl Harrell, in a relationship which other musicians thought of as lesbian. Tipton cross-dressed professionally as a man. The appropriate pronoun is female.
• which included the penis "packer" (sic) device and the binds used to conceal his breasts Tipton was biologically female. Hence the need for a "penis packer" device and the breast bindings.

The insistence on the use of a male pronoun is not accurate. It seeks to conceal the actual physical gender just as Tipton sought to conceal it. There should be no shame in a woman who lives as a man. But it is more important to acknowledge that, when a woman does live as a man, she remains a woman. Tipton remained a woman, despite her choices. She had no surgery to change her physical gender, and it does not matter that such a thing might not have be open to her, because the encyclopedia should primarily be concerned with things as they were, not as they might have been.

If there is an arbiter, it should be simple. We have one on WP: Sex_change, specifically the sections dealing with sex change in humans, where the factors that determine sex are described. By those standards, Tipton was born female and remained so because she did not undergo any kind of sex change, imposed or natural.

I believe that reversion is in order to amend the pronouns. They should reflect Tipton's actual physical gender, because her physical gender was established at her birth and again at her death. It never changed.

I don't see how female pronouns would be at odds with the fact she lived as a man. There is no disrespect or mockery of Tipton by using them, unless it is imagined.

If WP is to be worthy as an encyclopedia, we should be careful to maintain facts even though some might prefer that they were different.

We have an article that is unashamedly and entirely about a female who chose to live as a male. We do not need to use words such as transgender, cross-dressing, The article should be about her, and not a vehicle for the maintenance of individual points of view.

So let us not construct strange pronouns or use incorrect ones, because they are pronoun bindings or packers to make Tipton seem to be something that she was not. If we do, we not only are incorrect but we also suggest that a person becomes wholly different by masquerading as something she is not. There is no need to construct strange pronouns. Tipton is beyond offense at the time of writing. If others are offended by the facts, it is their concern and it does not change the facts. An established tenet of WP is described at Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views:

Those who harbor attitudes of racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, those whom we consider to have morally repugnant beliefs opposite to our own may consider an insight that could change their views.

If the WP articles for such as Mary_Anne_Talbot and Dorothy Lawrence use female pronouns, then, no matter how people might wish it were otherwise, WP must do the same with Tipton. Because the consistent WP approach is to refer to biological females as females and biological males as males.

• Was Tipton biologically male?
• Is it morally wrong to represent her as a woman who lived as a man?
• Should WP represent her as a man, despite her biological gender?

The answer to all those questions is "certainly not". If Tipton was ashamed of her own choices, that is shame enough for all of us. So let us be unashamedly correct and glad of it.

Thyrd (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Your input on the issue seems to derive from a deep ignorance of trans issues. It'd be nice if you refrained from speaking authoritavely on things you don't understand. "Female bodied" men are possible, as many people who are trans who cannot afford or otherwise choose not to transition do identify as their target sex. If a trans man cannot afford to transition even though he otherwise would wish to, does this mean a trans person can only identify as their target sex and have their choices respected if they have enough money? Furthermore, trans men cannot grow male genitalia as a result of surgery, whereas trans women can have genitalia more similar to cis women's. Does this mean trans men can never truly transition, while trans women can?

Also, if you use precedent as a choice, there's plenty of other pronouns around: Wendy Carlos' article only uses the female pronoun, which is the sex she identifies with. You are not being any more pragmatic or respecting the facts than anybody defending Tipton's target sex is. You're not using facts, you're just using your own point of view. (I otherwise respect people who defend the usage of pronouns because Tipton's target sex was not known) Betina (talk)

While I acknowledge your comments of Jan 9th, your argument took a turn down an ad hominem road. This is not an issue about editors but an issue about content, so please don't make it one. Also, as I hinted in my comments above, the article should not be a means to recognize trans issues at the expense of facts, either. Because Tipton lived before the term "transsexual" became part of the language, we cannot use that (WP:Synthesis) It is probably easy to turn this into an emotive issue so, if you feel I have been less than objective in my suggestions, please say objectively how that showed itself. I'll repeat that I have no problems with Tipton and the choices she made. There is no shame or ridicule in doing what she did.

• I don't believe we can use the Wendy Carlos article as a precedent for Tipton's, because she underwent sex reassignment surgery whereas Tipton did not. The two are unlike.
• Did Tipton choose to not have surgery because she could not afford it? Nobody knows whether or not cost was a factor, so it's wrong to suggest that it might have been. But we don't even have to go that far, because nobody knows if she even considered or wanted surgery. There aren't any references to it so far, and we must rely upon what we know. We don't know that Tipton considered surgery. We don't know that she wanted surgery and we don't know that she refused it. But if you can provide information and valid sources, fair enough.
• "Trans men cannot grow male genitalia as a result of surgery" Unless you're being specific about the meaning of the word "grow", the surgical procedures of scrotoplasty and phalloplasty suggest the opposite is true, just as vaginoplasty is true for female genitalia. It does not matter that prosthesis might be involved. (People cannot "grow" genitalia as a result of surgery. That's why surgery is carried out. So I believe that you didn't mean "grow" in a literal sense).

• As I wrote before, on WP we have to go with what we know. Otherwise, all that is needed for something to become a fact is the intention.

So, I stand by my first comments above. You'll note that I made the comments without changing the article itself. There have been - and continue to be - too many instances of edits and reversions about this issue. They are proof that there is a continual disagreement that will not stop without protecting the article. But it's not appropriate to protect the article without some consensus being reached. The essential thing is to make the article sensible and for it to meet WP standards. At present, for the reasons I mentioned before, it does not. If you believe you cannot agree with my comments no matter what, then there may be no option but to take this article the standard route for dispute resolution. It may provide a useful precedent for other similar articles. Thyrd (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a word - All this conversation about "what is more respectful", this is never a consideration elsewhere, where wikipediaites mask their bias behind a veneer of impartiality. If there ever were a test of your impartiality it might be here, or for 'Caitlin' Jenner, and so forth. The truth, yes, TRUTH, is that this woman crossdressed for much of her life in order to be successful, the truth is that she, is not a 'he', this damnable approach is completely fallacious and grossly misrepresentative - Is the unfettered truth more important, or this woman's emotions? - Her being dead. She lived a lie and didn't get away with it, it was a lie, this wikipedia biography is a lie - Is the truth so irrelevant? - Eli

Weasel Word?

In the Death and aftermath section, someone has cited the following sentence as containing a weasel word/phrase, but I just don't see it, and it really appears like the editor is asking who the individuals are that are mentioned in the article:

Two wills were left by Tipton; one handwritten and not notarized which left everything to William Jr. and the second, notarized, leaving everything to Jon Clark[who?]

I saw no discussion or talk here about that. Curious where the weasel word is or if the previous editor just didn't bother to read the cited reference. KyNephi (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed the reference until someone can better explain this. KyNephi (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is Maryann?

Near the end of the Family Life section it states "...and resumed his old relationship with Maryann." There is no previous mention of a "Maryann" in the article. One of the references cites "Vollers, Maryanne (1998-05-18)", which is a different spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.224.181 (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Repeated edits of pronouns and related entries.

I am requesting comments about the pronouns that should be used to describe Billy Tipton in this article.

There's a long history of repeated to & fro edits, changing all or some of the gender pronouns (he, she, her, his...), all or in part. I don't believe they are conducive to the accuracy and stability of the article.

Because it seems that the edits have not been made by two editors, but many editors, I believe that the best first step is to open this as an RFC.

The lack of consensus about the appropriate pronoun(s) to use might frequently stem from individuals' perception of Tipton's reasons and desires to be regarded as a particular gender, and the choices made in edits also might be strongly influenced by a particular POV. As I understand it, WP discourages edits that are made from a particular POV or unsubstantiated interpretation.

I've made my own opinions about this problem clear in my earlier comments on this page and to date I haven't been persuaded that I should change them.

I believe some edits have been made based upon interpretation rather than hard evidence, or from a particular POV. My instinct is to revert them. But I realize that it's not productive to revert or re-edit the article in such a way. We ought to be able to reach a consensus or cooperatively establish a standard for this issue. But edits have continued and comments have been scarce. I hoped things would be different.

I don't believe it's appropriate to suggest that the article be protected at this time. But I believe that it should reach a point where the pronouns used have been established and locked down to prevent any more toing & froing.

Some considerations that occurred to me:

• Must we use pronouns at all? Is it too clumsy to avoid them and refer to Tipton only as "Tipton", and only when it cannot be avoided? I believe with a little literary thought we could dispense with many pronouns.
• If we use pronouns, should they be of one gender throughout the article? Or should different gender pronouns be used according to the timing of Tipton's conscious decision to live as a person of a different gender than the birth gender?
• Does available evidence prove that Tipton made a choice at some point, or points, to live as one gender: For purely gender-related 'lifestyle' reasons? For expediency - employment reasons? If so, should they be treated differently?
• The article could employ an interpretation in the context of social gender issues that were not contemporarily accessible to Tipton. Would that interpretation based upon hindsight be accurate? Appropriate?

Thyrd (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't really a big deal the manual of style says that in cases of doubt, people are described using the pronoun they use to describe themselves. The people switching the pronouns are just people who aren't familiar with that part of the manual of style, and it's easy enough to correct the pronouns back to 'he' and point it out to them. Trying to write with no pronouns makes an unreadably awful writing style, and there's no way of knowing what Tipton thought about his choices, since he never spoke or wrote about this part of his life, and, as you point out, there wasn't really a word for 'transgendered' for most of his life. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with the statement above but do we know what language was used by Tipton for self reference at different times? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm disappointed that only two have responded so far. But to encourage more comments, I'm wondering about the manual of style being used to qualify the male pronoun as the correct one. The choice must be based upon the concept that it's the one Tipton used, but I'm troubled by the acknowledgement that

"there is no way of knowing what Tipton thought about his choices, since he never spoke or wrote ab out this part of his life"

So, what's an appropriate choice that is not open to doubt, and how do we make it? Thyrd (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. When dealing with the deceased, who aren't available for comment on their own lives, there's no choice that's entirely doubt free. We'll never know for sure what his thoughts on the matter were. However, he lived as a male long after he had to for his career, and in such a complete and complex way, to where even his children and possibly lovers didn't know his birth assigned gender, and that suggests that the most polite thing to do would be to continue the trend he set in life, and to use the pronoun 'he' that he used to describe himself, throughout the article, as suggested by manual of style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.58.253 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Manual of Style /also/ says: "Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage." As the article now stands the gender references are confusing.

From the biographical information available, it appears that Tipton didn't adopt her father's name until sometime around 1938-40, and wasn't "presenting" -exclusively- as a male in performance until around 1940. It would seem logical, therefore, to refer to Tipton as "she" and "her" up to the point at which she/he made that transition. After that transition, however, Tipton lived exclusively as a male, and from that point onwards (~1940, on) it is appropriate to refer to Tipton as "he" and "him" for the remainder of his life.

The alternative would seem to be to rewrite the entire article in such a way as to minimize gender references other than pronouns as much as possible. I think it's going to be much simpler, and far less confusing to use "she" up to 1940, and "he" from 1940 onwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• The article is definitely unsatisfactory in its present state, where it uses a male pronoun even in the first paragraph of "Early Life", where presumably ( -- as it is not stated otherwise) Tipton presented as a girl as a minor; and specifically in the next paragraph, where it says Tipton "more actively worked" at presenting as male, without having stated outright that Tipton was "presenting" as male to begin with! Regardless of Tipton's later identification, this is just poorly written. 70.17.166.39 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Billy and Kitty Tipton Estate

According to the television channel "Biography", which recently aired a program on the Secret Life of Billy Tipton, starring the three living sons of Billy Tipton, the estate was divided equally between Billy's three sons after Kitty's death, who died without a Will. The show is entitled "The Will" on Biography Channel.

According to the three sons of Billy Tipton, the estate was shared equally after Billy's wife Kitty died. According to the Wikipedia article only one son received her money and estate and the other two son's received $1.00 each. Acording to the three sons of Billy and Kitty this is not true. The Judge ruled that even though the three sons were not legally adopted by Kitty and Billy that they were still considered "family" and should share in the estate. After all attorney fees were taken out of the estate, the three sons each reportedily received $35,000.00 of the $300,000.00 estate of Kitty, Billy's wife although "Biography" reports they were never legally married because the marriage certificate was falsified.

Please refer to the television channel ~ Biography's "The Will".

Sans454 (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Sans454

Pronouns again

MOS:IDENTITY says "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." Tipton has never indicated a preference otherwise. So why describe him with Female pronouns when referring to his childhood? --71.59.58.63 (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Because in the given context the statement "he lived his adult life as a man" becomes an absurd stating of the apparently obvious. Of course "he" would live "his" life as a "man" -- why bother stating it?

The statement should read, " She is also notable for the postmortem discovery that although she lived her adult life as a man, she was born female." That statement conveys information that the reader mignt be unaware of, and puts it in a context that explains the need for the statement.

As it stands, the statement is akin to saying, "Malcolm X lived his life as a black man". Most people, knowing that Malcolm X was, in fact, black, will be wondering "why do they bother to explicitly point out the obvious?" Were it, in fact, true that Malcolm X was a white man, then the statement would be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Common sense sometimes trumps Wikipedia policy. 71.192.116.112 (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

THere's no reason to IAR here. There's no compelling reason given to change or arguments that this article is different than similar ones. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This whole thing is silly. When Tipton was young, she was always "presenting" naturally (i.e., as a young female). Then, when prevented from being so accepted as a musician because of gender, began to "present" as a male - only during periods when working. That evolved into her "presenting" as a male outside of work.

The argument is based upon the notion that a person must be either one thing or another, and detracts from the ability of a person to evolve into something that was not originally true. I came here via the WP article on cross-dressing, where Tipton was mentioned in Talk. There is nothing ambiguous or negative about her. There is no question about Tipton's gender, unless it be in the minds of those who feel her case is a manifestation of what they feel themselves, or who have an issue about transgenderism and feel that she must have always been something that she ended up being proven as not being.

She was born female, she never was anything but biologically female, she had a relationship with a female, then she began to live as a man and actively encouraged her partner - and family - to believe it was her birth gender.

Clearly some who feel strongly about gender issues are struggling to find a toehold on this hurdle. But it's a very particular kind of hurdle. It's the same as the hurdle, the stigma, that was put before homosexuality in the 1950's in that it's manufactured by people whose thought patterns are atrophied.

There's a lot of subjective point of view opinion that denies the truth, and I find it laughable that this argument's been around for a long time already and still prevents this article from being accurate. WP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2422:4CA9:8C22:503B:C05E:151F (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Pronouns yet again

I really don't want to get this started again, but Tipton self-identified as male. Per the arguments stated above, Tipton should be treated similarly to other female-to-male transsexuals. Admittedly, most articles on F-to-M transsexuals avoid pronouns, but policy states that they should be referred to as male. ONR (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is he not? __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Tipton was not transsexual. In the language of her own time, she was transvestite, or in more modern parlance, transgendered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is nonesense, it is not up to debate what Tipton was, If Tipton presented as male and went by male pronouns for most of his life, then lets just go by he/him. We cannot accurately say whether or not he would of considered himself transgender, but thats irrelevant, the point of this article is not to determine whether or not he was a man or not, its to educate. Also Tipton went by he/him and as male for most of his life, calling him a she because he went by those pronouns as a kid, which in the grand scheme of his life is incredibly minor fraction. Billy Tipton lived as a man, in both public and private life, and didn’t even tell his close romantic partners about his female gender. We should not the one determining what Billy Tipton was, we should go by whatever he went by and respect that. The History Nerd5 (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• female sex The History Nerd5 (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Billy Tipton. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928084633/http://www.mountainpridemedia.com/oitm/issues/2003/03mar2003/col05_likethat.htm to http://www.mountainpridemedia.com/oitm/issues/2003/03mar2003/col05_likethat.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070516002031/http://www.salon.com:80/books/sneaks/1998/05/18sneaks.html to http://www.salon.com/books/sneaks/1998/05/18sneaks.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090728170013/http://www.spokesmanreview.com:80/breaking/story.asp?ID=15236 to http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=15236
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522124616/http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809400272/info to http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809400272/info
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927062413/http://www.bovineclub.com/gasoline/REV20.php?offset=8&entry_id=20 to http://www.bovineclub.com/gasoline/REV20.php?offset=8&entry_id=20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Billy Tipton. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/books/sneaks/1998/05/18sneaks.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=15236
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021224035304/http://www.dianemiddlebrook.com/tipton/timeline/frames.html to http://www.dianemiddlebrook.com/tipton/timeline/frames.html

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) 14:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

EddieHugh, regarding this, this and this, it's not uncommon to see a whole paragraph supported by one source at the end of the paragraph. To use the same citation after each sentence in a whole paragraph can be seen as WP:Citation overkill. I do source a paragraph in that way at times, though, because I know that some editors will assume that only one part of the paragraph is sourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It's personal preference in part (WP:UNDERKILL): when I see a whole paragraph with one source at its end, I question if each sentence is from that source. With this article, the answer was sometimes "no", and the sourcing was generally poor, so adding (having checked) the source or a cn tag for each sentence seemed prudent. And that's the non-personal preference part: if the sourcing is bad, the reader is being misled about what has been sourced. Even though this isn't a BLP, some of the content is a sensitive topic for many readers, so they need to be shown clearly where each bit of information comes from (and where it's been added unsourced). EddieHugh (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

EddieHugh, it's personal preference, but citation overkill (except for the paragraph instance I brought up) often is not tolerated, including in WP:GAs and WP:FAs. Editors are significantly more willing to tolerate citing each sentence in a paragraph with the same source than they are twelve citations for one sentence, for example. WP:UNDERKILL, a recent creation, is not as supported by the community as WP:OVERKILL is, as has been made clear at the talk pages of these two essays. In any case, like I stated above, I understand why you added the WP:REFNAME the way that you did for this article. I just wanted to note to you that it's not uncommon to see a whole paragraph supported by one source at the end of the paragraph. A paragraph can look under-sourced, but not be under-sourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I know that if I see one citation at the end of a para in a FA, then it's likely to be fine. If I see it in a typical article, such as this one, then I have doubts. These doubts, if investigated, often turn out to be substantiated. Readers who are not also editors and don't know about GA and FA (ie almost all readers) are left to themselves to judge. There's no ideal solution, but I believe that on a (currently) badly sourced article such as this one it's preferable to spell out for the average reader what's supported and what's not. And, of course, for editors, none of whom has leapt in with sources for the cn bits yet. If the article approaches GA or FA, we could discuss the matter again... EddieHugh (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Just found out ...

... about this jazz musician who was really a woman. I found out through quora. I am seeing controversy about pronoun usage in discussion on this talk page and am choosing not to participate. Carlm0404 (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

He was not “really a woman”, he was always a man, he just was unfortunately born in the wrong body. The History Nerd5 (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Deadnaming

The deadname should be removed from the article, as it is not an example of a deadname that people would recognize. Deadnaming is frowned upon where this is not the case, and being a dead person doesn't entail that the deadname should be present. It appears to me that including the deadname here flies in the face of all consensuses related to how deadnames should be employed. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

For discussion here , I believe that the applicable guidelines are MOS:DEADNAME & MOS:GENDERID, & that the applicable policies are WP:Notability, WP:NOTCENSORED, & WP:EDITCONSENSUS.

As stated in in the hatnote for the policies & guidelines, It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The WP:Policies and guidelines page states that Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow. It also states that Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. I think that most would agree that should follow for policies is more forceful than should attempt to follow for guidelines.

The very notability for Tipton is that he was transgender & was successful at concealing his biological gender traits until he died. Remove that, & we might as get rid of the article. He did not appear to be particularly notable as a jazz musician. All of the references in the article date from nearly a decade after his death or later. There is no contemporary reference, so nothing notable occurred until his death & the discovery of his transgenderness.

That begs the question for the reader, "Well, who was he before he became a man." The birth name / dead name is part of the story, & to suppress it would go against common sense & in essence would be censorship.

The MOS:DEADNAME guideline states that the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. This is not in question since the dead name was not included there. This section goes on to state If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. Privacy is simply moot here because Tipton's birth name & status has been well reported. The question becomes whether a discreet exception to usually should not be included would be common sense in this situation.

What I would propose is to remove the dead name from the infobox & to leave it as is in the Early life section. Removing it from the Infobox would eliminate its bluntness, whereas keeping it in the Early life section discreetly places it in a common sense way. Peaceray (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Tipton wouldn't be notable (in a Wikipedia sense) without the post-mortem revelations. Removing all mentions of the 'birth name' would be a disservice to the reader, especially as there is no privacy concern (and yes, it's the reader we're here for, not the subject of any article). I'd prefer it to be in the infobox, too, as it relates directly to why this article exists (it wouldn't exist based solely on Tipton as a musician), but I'm flexible on that. From a policy/guideline perspective, it's total removal from the article isn't supported: MOS:DEADNAME explicitly refers to living people and mentions in the lead. EddieHugh (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, is your argument that deadnaming Tipton is a requirement to represent that they concealed their birth name? Because I'm entirely confused by the logic that the reader is done a disservice by not knowing what their deadname was. They do not need to know his deadname in order to know that he concealed it, that's just trivia. The notable aspect of Tipton was the concealment, and never his name. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding onto this conversation, Tipton wouldn't be notable without him being transgender??? That's just objectively untrue. We have obscure jazz musicians on here, he has a quartet that still exists named after him, and also if the only thing notable about him was his transgender status, the article would be mostly talking about that, not about all the many things he did during his life, which it is. Your argument is just frankly untrue. And for the rest of it, I agree with Bryn and confer to their points. - Lizstar64 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lizstar64: Regarding the comment that We have obscure jazz musicians on here, please see the WP:Other stuff exists essay. It is not a policy or guideline, but it is relevant to your statement.

Regarding my arguments being untrue or not, please prove me wrong. If Tipton is truly notable as a jazz artist, then there should be reliable sources about him before his death & revelation of his biological gender. If they exist, then we should certainly include them in the article. I would be pleased to see this article become more robust. However, my argument is based on the current state of the article & its citations.

Furthermore, I will note that the most notable thing about Tipton was his successful concealment of his biological gender. In this respect, this article is similar to James Barry (surgeon), Albert Cashier, & Amelio Robles Ávila articles, each of which mention the birth name more prominently. Peaceray (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that his notability as a jazz musician is getting off-point, because even if his notability was exclusively his concealment of his gender, including the deadname neither enhances nor detracts that aspect of him. It's just trivia. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

How would we express the fact that he didn't use one name, without stating what that name was? It's possible, but surely readers would be left wondering why they weren't being told that name too. (Why do we tell readers which hospital Bob Dylan (a Featured Article) was born in? It's arguably trivia, but we tell readers because people very interested in Dylan probably want that sort of detail.) My main area of editing on here is jazz. The relevant criteria for notability are WP:MUSICBIO. It's very unlikely that pre-revelation Tipton would meet any of them. The two albums released were on a very small label; maybe there was press coverage at the time (1950s), but who would have looked for it without the post-mortem coverage? "objectively untrue": so which notability criteria would he have met? EddieHugh (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

But you're not giving an example of what would be lost by not including the birth name. "Tipton was given a different name at birth." The difference between a hospital and a deadname is obvious, as including only one of those is known to cause distress in trans people. Witnessing examples of transphobia can be a trigger for people. And before you argue that Wikipedia is not censored, we already don't deadname certain living trans actors, so you need to be able to explain what is lost by saying "Tipton was given a different name at birth." If people were interested in a prolific person's SSN, we wouldn't satisfy that curiosity. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do we mention Tipton's arthritis? Why do we give the names of the non-notable women Tipton had relationships with? Why do we name the non-notable adopted children? I refer you to the Dylan example. Readers are interested (and sources readily provide the information). If we're forcing readers to open a new tab and search somewhere else for that information, we're not doing as much as we can (obviously there are exceptions such as privacy for WP:BLP). I see no reason for interest in an SSN (or a ready source). Tipton's long-dead, so can't get distressed; others might be, so we have to balance things such as what information is included and what prominence is given to it. The name is not in the lead and doesn't appear in bold anywhere. Peaceray has suggested removing it from the infobox and I've said that I'm flexible on that. EddieHugh (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "People might find it interesting or want to know about it" is not an acceptable reason on its own to include a piece of information. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." As we see here, just saying "someone might want to know this." Your other points are easily parried because you're not bringing up examples of information known to cause distress. As far as "they'll find the deadname anyway" goes, this is an argument that would also be true for living trans people, as well as people who wish to remain anonymous, such as an anonymous figure who gets doxxed. Your positions don't stand on any good policy or guidelines grounds, and the claim that readers would be done a disservice by not mentioning the deadname is an opinion that you have, one that is not even close to reflected by any consensus. So if you do not have any evidence to back up any of what you say, this discussion is moot, and I would ask that you acquiesce to the positions that actually are rooted in consensus, policy, and guidelines. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Peaceray provided a list of relevant policies and guidelines above to support inclusion of the name. I saw no need to list them again. WP:INDISCRIMINATE has "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources"; that describes this situation: the name is used in context and the existence of that name is explained using independent sources. INDISCRIMINATE is about judgement and needs to be considered and balanced with other policies/guidelines. Compare WP:CENSOR: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content", but that's the only argument for its removal that's been presented. I see no policy-based reason to remove it, and no consensus either (WP:NOCON... sorry for the splurge of policies... that's what happens when I'm criticized for not referring to policies!). EddieHugh (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You haven't once made an actual argument for why he was notable under his deadname, you made a synthetic argument that because he concealed his birth name, that his birth name is important. If you have something to demonstrate this to be the case, then please, be my guest. Before you establish that, however, you're just stating opinions on what should be done. And in this case, because this dead trans person wasn't known by that name, the name is trivia at best. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

SYNTH is about sourcing, so isn't relevant here. Referring to multiple policies and guidelines, as two editors here have done, isn't a "synthetic argument", and I haven't made the argument that you claim I have. EddieHugh (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The policies and guidelines cited have nothing to do with the value of deadnaming deceased people. The argument involves claiming that deadnaming being bad only applies to living people who were not known under that deadname. What guideline or policy suggests that the article is lacking for the absence of a deadname? Please point to the exact portion of whatever guideline or policy you cite. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Where no policy or guideline exists for an exact set of circumstances, we refer to other policies and guidelines and use them. That's standard practice. See the above linked policies and guidelines and quotations from them, as well as those presented by others below. EddieHugh (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as synthetic arguments go, yes, technically it's not sourcing, because there aren't any sources being used. It's just you conflating "he is known for concealing his birth name" with your opinion that this makes the birth name itself an important thing to include. That is not founded in policy or evidence, so again, just focus on what the policies say. The closest thing we have to a policy argument on this is that we err on the side of caution with deadnaming. And for a subject whose deadname is being included for an incredibly weak reason, the deadname should be removed. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You again claim that I've made an argument that I haven't made. See comments from others below on your other points. EddieHugh (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

So, the way MOS:DEADNAME is written, it appears to only apply to BLPs. How Wikipedia should treat the birth names of other subjects is less clear. As a point of comparison, Albert Cashier is another article about a subject about a person who became notable for having concealed a female sex assignment; that article includes the birth name in the infobox, the "Early life" section, and the lead sentence. --Equivamp - talk 01:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

How other articles handle it is not really relevant here, as all parties in favor of removal here most certainly oppose its inclusion there. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Likely so, but it may be useful for other editors who (like me) are not convinced on how MOS:DEADNAME should apply outside of BLPs. Plus, it's useful to bear in mind that editors on this talk page cannot create a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that overrides/contradicts the (status quo) consensus without convincing the wider community. --Equivamp - talk 12:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I would venture to say that the purpose of WP:DEADNAME is to create a safe space for the living subjects of articles. In essence, this is like an extension of the Wikimedia Foundation's meta:Friendly space policies to this project. I am wholly onboard & supportive of this as a WP:BLP policy. I am acquainted with some who are part of meta:Wikimedia_LGBT+. One prominent member shared with me that closeted editors from other countries had contacted that editor to appreciate the work that this editor does, as their lives would be in mortal danger should their LGBT status become known. Pre-pandemic, I had trans people in my circles. It has not been easy for them.

But to what purpose does it server to exclude the birth name of a historical transgendered person when they are beyond being recently deceased? We include the birth name of any other historical individual. There is no capability to create a safe space for a dead person. The best we can do is to tell their tale as reasonably complete as possible, in a neutral & verifiable manner.

To do otherwise would be to hide truth by omission. This would be censorship. For Wikipedia to censor itself would be no better than kowtowing to the Right to be forgotten when the subject is notable. The WMF has indicated that it will fight the latter type of censorship, & if you drill down from meta:Category:Wikimedia Foundation Transparency Report, you will arrive at individual Right To Be Forgotten Requests, such as meta:Wikimedia Foundation Transparency Report/June 2016/Right To Be Forgotten Requests.

WP:DEADNAME is WP:BLP; otherwise Wikipedia is not censored. Therefore, I strongly object to the complete removal of the birth name / DEADNAME from this article. I am open to compromise as to how it is presented Peaceray (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Pretending like the birth name of a trans person is no different than the birth name of a cis person is a terribly disingenuous argument, not the least of which being due to the fact that we don't apply that logic to living trans people. By itself, that is a nothingburger of an argument. The reason why deadnaming is bad is because it is disrespectful to trans people to do so, not just unsafe. So no, a show of disrespect towards a trans person is not an acceptable compromise, just because they died.

And I ask again: if a trans person dies, does it become okay to deadname them? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 06:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning. I take a hard line against censoring Wikipedia, & towards transparency in general. So in answer to your question, after a time, say a year after the death, yes, I would say that then it would be a proper. We do not give anyone else the choice to approve what goes into an article. Why should any trans person get defferential treatment after death when safety is no longer an issue. If we start making such a deference, where does it stop? Do we eliminate birth names for people who have changed their names for religious reasons, for those who have changed & despise their birth surname due to parental abuse, or for those who entered a witness protection program & decide from habit or shame that they never want to use their birth name again? To suppress truth in deference to some when it is no longer a safety issue is like the quote from Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

WP:DEADNAME is a MOS guideline. WP:BLP, WP:COMMON, & WP:NOTCENSORED are policies & take precedence. From my knowledge, we have seldom removed birth names from historical transgender people as a matter of policy. I offer as examples, Amelio Robles Ávila, James Barry (surgeon), Albert Cashier, Alan L. Hart, & Patricia Morgan (transgender woman), all of which are on my watch list. Let's not try to carve out a new de facto policy or guideline without sufficient discussion & consensus. Peaceray (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Do we really harm Billy Tipton more by giving his specific birth name, than by stating that he was biologically female? I'm guessing his main concern was the latter, not the former. And basically the whole article is about the latter. --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Earlier Bryn asks, "if a trans person dies, does it become okay to deadname them?" I think it does, yes, and the principle I'm using is WP:BLPNAME. That's the part where it says we don't name non-notable "family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons". Now consider, oh Vincent Van Gogh, a Wikipedia:Featured article. Right from the start, in the "Early life" section we name his parents, his siblings, his uncles, an aunt, several cousins, a flatmate, several unsuccessful romances ... lots and lots of people who are not notable in and of themselves. And that doesn't violate WP:BLPNAME. Why? Because they're dead. All of them. They don't have feelings to be hurt, or privacy to be violated, we can't disrespect them in any way that matters to them. Can we write Vincent Van Gogh by just saying "became infatuated with his landlady's daughter" instead of "became infatuated with his landlady's daughter, Eugénie Loyer"? Sure, it wouldn't be a great loss. But it would be a loss, and it doesn't hurt Eugénie Loyer any ... because she's dead. If she were alive, we absolutely couldn't - after all, writing that some semi-sane artist became infatuated with her, that would be scandalous for a proper lady of the time, I'm sure it would hurt her personally, would hurt her reputation, be a grievous show of disrespect. But she's dead. So we give her name. Can we write Billy Tipton without giving his birth name? Sure. Would giving his birth name hurt him if he were alive, would it disrespect him, would it this that and the other thing? Probably. But he's dead. He's beyond the slings and arrows of this world. So we can do what's best for the article. --GRuban (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately the argument has been to say "couldn't hurt," which to me, is a pretty poor reason on its own to include it. Further, deadnaming can cause distress to more than just the victim of the deadnaming, but also friends and family of that person. I feel like people don't super get the impact deadnaming has on the subjects and those who witness it, as well as the alienation of many people who fall outside of majority demos on the project. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 05:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And how is that different from the friends and family of Eugénie Loyer? The reason isn't that it couldn't hurt, there are plenty of things that couldn't hurt that we aren't arguing to include. The reason is that it's important. Someone's birth name is generally considered rather important in writing their biography. I guarantee you that if we make our inclusion standards "only include information that doesn't alienate anyone" we will find an endless number of sensitive people that will ask that we delete almost all information in the Wikipedia because it hurts them. --GRuban (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, the position that Someone's birth name is generally considered rather important in writing their biography, and that therefore non-notable deadnames should be disclosed on WP, has already been rejected by the community when it comes to BLP subjects. Absolutist arguments based on "necessary elements of a biography", or NOTCENSORED for that matter, have thus already been rejected by site-wide consensus in at least certain cases, so invoking these principles in an absolute form is unhelpful in etablishing what the relevant boundaries ought to be. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, that's the entire point, Billy Tipton is long dead, so BLP doesn't apply, and we get to write the best article.--GRuban (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Either the wrong number of : were entered, or you replied to my comment without reading it. I can't tell which, NGL. Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. My point is specifically about this article, Billy Tipton. My position that we should include his birth name in this article. I'm not arguing that we should include other people's names in some other article, or everywhere. Bryn's position is that we shouldn't include it in this article because it causes distress to the subject, friends, and family. The subject is dead, so it causes them no distress. Broadening the exclusionary standard beyond living persons, which is what seems to being asked for here - possibly not by you, as I'm not sure what you're asking for now, but definitely by Bryn - is a slippery slope, and I'm not just saying that; a few years ago there was an editor arguing up and down that we should apply BLP standards to "living" corporations, because, of course, they're composed of living people, so we shouldn't embarrass them either. The position that non-notable deadnames should be disclosed for living people has been rejected, correct. That doesn't apply here. --GRuban (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

But I was responding to Someone's birth name is generally considered rather important in writing their biography, from which you made the slippery slope jump to we will find an endless number of sensitive people that will ask that we delete almost all information in the Wikipedia because it hurts them. Neither of those absolute-sounding positions seems to recognize that WP policies and guidelines embody a much more nuanced consideration of the factors involved in DUE inclusion in articles. Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

OK. You're against absolute-sounding positions. What is your position on the specific issue being discussed here? --GRuban (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I have put forward a straw dog in the MOS decision linked below. Otherwise my participation in the discussions on this topic has been entirely to shoot down absolute-sounding and straw man arguments. I am not at the point of !voting. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's customary when starting a related discussion elsewhere to notify interested parties. Abryn hasn't done that here, so this is a note to point out that a discussion on the wider implications of what's being discussed here has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Deadnaming. EddieHugh (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It is totally unnecessary to deadname Billy Tipton. His deadname is not the name under which he became notable, and while he is, in part, a notable figure because he was trans, the fact that he changed his name could be stated without indicating what the deadname was. It is disrespectful and harmful to trans people to use a person's deadname when they quite obviously and purposefully distanced themself from said name. Deadnaming in a Wikipedia article perpetuates transphobia, and is simply not necessary. As Bryn has put it: "'People might find it interesting or want to know about it' is not an acceptable reason on its own to include a piece of information. 'To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.'" Billy Tipton's deadname is a good example of a fact that is not necessary or suitable for inclusion here. leontine86 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME is the policy that applies here. It currently applies to someone who is living: In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, .... There are discussions about it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Implementing deadname RFCs. Please also read through this existing thread on this page. Peaceray (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Notes

References

Jumping into this discussion. It is not "censorship" to exclude the name a person was assigned at birth if they were transgender, whether living or dead. Nor is doing so neutral information. In this case, Billy Tipton lived as male for almost his entire adult life and did not tell even the people closest to him his former name. This would seem to indicate that he very strongly did not wish to have that name revealed, and it would be respectful to his privacy at the very list to consider those wishes.

Further, this article includes pervasive language to refer to transgender people which is outdated and offensive. The focus on revelation is relevant, since he gained notoriety after death through this unfortunate outing. But we should recognize that as a sad and sensitive subject, and make an effort to handle it delicately. The language in this entry, which I attempted to change and which was reverted, does not do so. The current language of the article takes a salacious tone which implies throughout that Tipton was lying. This is not a neutral tone, nor is it sensitive to the subject.

Finally - the presentation of past LGBTQ+ is relevant to creating safe space for living LGBTQ+ people. There are ways to present this information sensitively that do not engage in censorship. None of the edits I tried to make, which were reverted, change the *information* of the article, but rather the *tone* to be more sensitive both to Tipton's clear wishes for privacy and to currently living LGBTQ+ people who are probably the primary readers of this article. Catman6423 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Dead name and other changes to terminology

There is no need to deadname this person. He did not go by his deadname for the vast majority of his adult life.

Every change I made regarding his deadname and other outdated ways of referring to him was reverted. Why? Catman6423 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I see now that my "good faith" edits were reverted. I do not consider the reversion to be "in good faith." Catman6423 (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

crossposting here, since the other thread has not been active in several months:

Jumping into this discussion. It is not "censorship" to exclude the name a person was assigned at birth if they were transgender, whether living or dead. Nor is doing so neutral information. In this case, Billy Tipton lived as male for almost his entire adult life and did not tell even the people closest to him his former name. This would seem to indicate that he very strongly did not wish to have that name revealed, and it would be respectful to his privacy at the very list to consider those wishes.

Further, this article includes pervasive language to refer to transgender people which is outdated and offensive. The focus on revelation is relevant, since he gained notoriety after death through this unfortunate outing. But we should recognize that as a sad and sensitive subject, and make an effort to handle it delicately. The language in this entry, which I attempted to change and which was reverted, does not do so. The current language of the article takes a salacious tone which implies throughout that Tipton was lying. This is not a neutral tone, nor is it sensitive to the subject.

Finally - the presentation of past LGBTQ+ is relevant to creating safe space for living LGBTQ+ people. There are ways to present this information sensitively that do not engage in censorship. None of the edits I tried to make, which were reverted, change the *information* of the article, but rather the *tone* to be more sensitive both to Tipton's clear wishes for privacy and to currently living LGBTQ+ people who are probably the primary readers of this article. Catman6423 (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. I vehemently disagree with the addition of the deadname, given that the "best" argument that has ever been provided on that front has been "people might want to know it." However, I can at least understand the argumentative throughline with respect to reverting edits that remove his deadname. However, it is unequivocally a bad-faith action in my eyes to revert your edits that modify language to be more neutral and be more respectful towards Tipton's gender. There is no censorship in neutral language, there is no reader interest, it actively comes across as a specifically transphobic action to see Peaceray making these reversions. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Catman: it might be worth your knowing that the Wikipedia community currently makes a major distinction (and therefore differing treatment) between living and recently deceased trans people - to whom MOS:DEADNAME fully applies- and trans people who have been dead for much longer, whom the MOS treats with much more flexibility. Personally, I would like to see the latter situation change, but the community has spoken reasonably clearly on this though a number of Talk page discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

There really hasn't been much of a consensus at all, from where I sit, on how to approach the deadnaming of dead people. The text only talks about what to do with living transgender people, an error that has lead people to rush to deadname trans people when they die before the body's even cold. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If by "error" you mean "clearly expressed preference of a large number of editors" (who happen to disagree with me), then you are right. Also, BLP policies do continue to apply for a period after death, so the people who rush to deadname are in violation of policy (and I for one revert those edits when I see them). Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am calling that an error. Consensus can be erroneous and even harmful, and not everything should be left to consensus. This is not a vote, after all. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You are right that this isn't a vote, but only because you are wrong about consensus. Site-wide consensus literally is the "highest court of appeal" for the project. Right now, that site-wide consensus places strict bounds on deadnaming living (and recently deceased) people, but is much more lax about long-dead people. If you want that practice to change, you actually have to engage with the community so that site-wide consensus shifts. There is no shortcut. Newimpartial (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you link me to what Wikipedia has to say about the deadnaming of dead people specifically? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

that should be "at the very least" in the first paragraph Catman6423 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll say - I agree that there is historical difference for how to discuss currently living or recently deceased trans persons versus trans people who have been dead for longer. Times are changing and we now use language that people themselves may not have used, and we should be ahistorical in how we present them.

I would argue that we should base our language of long dead trans people on two things: 1) how the person described themselves during their life, especially if this is clearly documented over a long period of time and 2) current norms around what is a neutral frame through which to discuss trans people.

Applying these criteria to this article, we can see that under criteria 1, Billy Tipton referred to himself as male throughout his adult life. He did not choose to disclose to even the people closest to him what his deadname was or his sex assigned at birth. This would seem to overwhelmingly indicate his desires on the topic. We do not know the the specific material and social circumstances in his life that made him make these decision, but the decisions themselves are very clear. This is one piece of important information.

On criteria 2 that I named, the accepted language around how to talk about trans people is changing rapidly. Terms like "biological sex" and "birth sex" have become politicized (recently acknowledged by a federal judge in the TN court case around bathrooms, see https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/bongo-productions-llc-et-al-v-lawrence-et-al-order-granting-preliminary-injunction). It is therefore important that we try to take a frame that is balanced and neutral, and where possible sensitive. We cannot pretend that the discussion of dead trans people is only relevant to the person themselves; the framing of this discussion is very important to currently living trans people. Catman6423 (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

sorry, we **should not be ahistorical Catman6423 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually agree with essentially all of what you say here, Catman, but would like to point out two additional facts: (1) there is no site-wide consensus that the (reliably-sourced) deadnames of long-dead trans people should be excluded from articles: in fact there is probably a consensus to include them; and (2) while I agree that the language is rapidly changing, the general, policy-grounded practice on WP is to base the language used in articles on the reliable sourcing for the subject of that article. If you would like to see updated language for trans subjects in general, regardless of the sourcing for the individual (deceased) subject where the sourcing might lag, that is something that could be proposed e.g. on the LGBT project page or at the Village pump (policy). It is certainly not something that could be successfully done BOLDly Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)