Talk:Laverne Cox/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Reads like an ad

Where's the objectivity? Where's the educational value? This "encyclopedia" article reads like an advertisement and should be deleted pornto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.242.246 (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Please create an account if you want to be taken seriously, and please raise specific objections about the article.Euchrid (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello 68.224 Note that you are welcome to keep editing as an IP for as long as you wish. I will look at the article, however we do have a criteria for speedy deletion as advertisement. If, after reading the article you don't feel like the article meets the criteria, you are welcome to start a discussion at WP:Articles for deletion. If you don't want to delete the article after all, then providing constructive critsism would be welcome. Cheers! Tazerdadog (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The initial points are not worthy of rejoinder because they are so vague and seemingly biased, not to mention unmoored from established Wikipedia policies on what qualifies as notability (which this article demonstrates again and again). Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

TIME Cover

Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning was on the TIME cover in 2013. Cox is not the first openly trans person to appear on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.213.89 (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The TIME cover in question dated from June 24, 2013, and Manning did not come out as trans until the day after her sentencing, August 22. Thefamouseccles (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with thefamouseccles' interpretation.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Suicide attempt - relevent to include?

@98.30.59.28: @70.118.9.138: There appears to be some disagrement as to wether her suicide attempt should be included as relevent in her article. Can we attempt to fomr some sort of consensus on this matter before it has to be taken to WP:DR. Amortias (T)(C) 22:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Although unfortunate and quite possibly an unpleasent subject a suicide attempt is quite a noteable (though not for positive reasons) event in someones life. If they have come to a point where they have decided to make such a life changing decision it fels to me as if it should be included. Amortias (T)(C) 22:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Include: Sourced and significant. Though the sentence is a bit incongruous at present, when the article is fleshed out with more info it will be plainly useful. BethNaught (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Include: Sourced and somewhat significant, since she has discussed it in interviews. Not worthy of a long section in such a short entry, but at an appropriate length currently (i.e., one short sentence). Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Include: Sourced and an all-too-common issue among LGBTQ folks. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Include: Sourced and significant. It is relevant to the issue of whether being Trans is a psychological disorder, and if that severe depression is innately due to being Trans or if it is environmental. Walterego (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to conduct original research via Wikipedia. You can do your own original research in your own sandbox (good luck with that). Aroundthewayboy (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Important

I think it's important that we need to remove any edit from any article on a trans woman that changes female terms to male terms. This means make it no longer visible in the edit history. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You're talking about Oversight or suppression here, which is the normal term for removing revisions from history. Looking at the policy, I think it absolutely applies to articles where the subject is not openly trans (per "Removal of non-public personal information"). I don't think there's anything to be achieved from suppressing those edits for someone who is openly trans though – changing the pronouns is offensive vandalism, but that alone doesn't warrant suppression. —me_and 09:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Needs more Bio information

This page is woefully lacking in basic information about its subject. Most importantly, What is Cox's date of birth? How old is she? That's one of the first things a page about a person should have. Plus a lot of other info. Walterego (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Walterego: We can only add what reliable sources have reported. Do you have a reliable source for her age? --NeilN talk to me 17:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, here's a source that did a lot of research on the issue: Laverne Cox was born in 1972, we're pretty sure. I feel like even with a degree of uncertainty, this is useful information that should be included to give a reader an indication of whether she is 15 or 90.Teaperson (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Surgery

@Alison:, please justify what seems to be your reflexive revert. A great part of the subject's notability comes from her transgender status. --NeilN talk to me 17:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • It's hardly 'reflexive', Neil. What bothers me most is that it's a dubious single-sourced remark and explicitly mentions surgery, not "transgender status", whatever that means. We don't throw around personal medical issues like that on other BLPs, so why on this? At the least, you should have multiple reliable sources for such a matter and one single WP:NEWSBLOG is already pretty sketchy. That's largely where my issue is. Yes - Laverne Cox is trans. There are a billion sources at this stage to clarify that. But using a blog source under the guise of news (yeah, I get it) to talk about surgeries - particularly relation to a person's genitalia?? C'mon - we can do better than that - Alison ❤ 17:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, and it also smacks of legitimizing someone's "trans status" based on whether they've had genital surgery or not. That's pretty contentious already in the LGBT community - Alison ❤ 17:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The source for that article is Cox herself, which is why I think one source is enough, even if it doesn't quote her directly. However, the article says "gender surgery" and doesn't specify what that means; it could just mean top surgery. -- Irn (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
And exactly why should we consider if something is "contentious already in the LGBT community" when determining article content? --NeilN talk to me 17:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The more contentious something is, the more important that it's reliably sourced, IMO. Sjö (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Well these days she's pretty much not talking period about any surgery she's done - see [here for a report on an appearance on Katie Couric's show. So it's not like we're that likely to find that many other sources where she discusses the surgery. Tabercil (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Alison seems to be claiming the perceived implications of the surgery are contentious to one group. I see no reason why this group should get special status when deciding article content. Getting a cochlear implant is contentious within the deaf community. This does not stop us from adding that fact to a bio if it's relevant. --NeilN talk to me 12:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the contentiousness, I think Alison's right. Did you see the way Cox handled that question with Katie Couric? And talking about a BLP subject's genitals is already a sensitive issue. (As an aside, being contentious doesn't stop us from adding information, but it does require better sourcing. Since the source doesn't specify genital surgery, we need to be very careful about how we represent it.)
However, from the source we have, I think we can safely say that Cox had some sort of surgery and started transitioning ten years before 2008. -- Irn (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a recent quote from her which backs up that here: "This is why I’m so grateful that I had the luxury of transitioning in private,”. There's probably other useful quotes out there - I am digging for sources. Tabercil (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Emmy awards and OR?

The two sources attached to statement that she was the first to be nominated in an acting category just say that she was the first to be nominated, and one of them kind of clumsily tags on the acting category bit after stating that she was the first nominated (apparently in any category). The other kind of clumsily says she was the firat "in 2014", but don't Emmy nominations all come out simultaneously? The Angela Morley source doesn't mention anything about her being the last openly transgender person to be nominated for an Emmy before 2014, so saying that Cox was the first since 1990 based on that source is OR. If the Morley obituary is accurate, and if Morley was "out" when she was nominated in 1990 (she appears to have completely changed her name, which to me implies that perhaps her having been born male was not widely known, and I am sure there have been people who were nominated before they came out -- Lilly Wachowski appears to have been nominated for an Emmy when she was still going by Andy), that means that the Variety and Time sources are both inaccurate when they say (or imply) that Cox was the first.

There are a lot of ways we could nuance this discussion so as to be completely accurate, but I think a source that explicitly address the above questions should be found, and unless a source stating that Cox was the first openly transgender individual nominated "since 1990" can be found that claim should be removed.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 12:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Birth Name

What's the thought behind including this in the first line of the article? I know this is a standard practice in Wiki articles, but it can be disrespectful to share a trans person's birth name (especially so obviously.) Any ideas how she feels about this? The bio on her own website does not even include this name. NLSarah (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@NLSarah: Articles report on "real things". I can accept removing it from the lead but it should at least appear in the body. --NeilN talk to me 03:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN:Sounds good to me. Although I don't see any citation for her given name? (may be missing it) NLSarah (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
nvm, found the citation. NLSarah (talk) 02
53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Those were really weak sources for her birth name, since they appeared to be using Wikipedia as THEIR source. It is standard Wikipedia practice in bios of living trans people to not include their birth names unless that is common knowledge in mainstream sources -- what you are doing is MAKING it common knowledge by including it in the Wikipedia article, which is original research, which is one of the biggest no-nos in Wikipedia. Please cease and desist. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Please desist from accusing two high quality sources of not doing proper fact checking without providing any credible evidence. --NeilN talk to me 23:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be on a personal campaign to publicly humiliate Ms. Cox by conducting original research about her birth name. That is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I have invited others to this discussion, and I will defer to consensus as long as a significant number of long-term editors weigh in. However, it is standard Wikipedia policy to remove contentious information IMMEDIATELY from bios of living people. Please do not reinsert this potentially libelous material unless the consensus on this page agrees that is appropriate to do so.
To refresh your memory, from the top of this talk page: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."
As an editor of about a decade, I assert that this is very poorly sourced and contentious material about living persons. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
@Aroundthewayboy: Reminding you to WP:AGF. Do not try to guess NeilN's intentions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The birth name is found in multiple reliable sources. It is understandable that Cox may want to ignore/minimize that portion of their life. Thats true of lots of people for lots of reasons, but it is not encyclopedic to do so. Cox's notability is due in no small part to their status as a transgender person. By definition transgender means a prior identity and transition. To not cover that info is a failure of the most basic sort. [1] [2] [3] Gaijin42 (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  • First time her birth name was added was August 3, 2014 in this edit. It cites an article from June 19, 2014. That article was edited on September 04, 2014 in which her birth name was removed. However, an archived version from the Wayback Machine can be found here with her birth name mentioned. WP:CIRCULAR, the crux of Aroundthewayboy's argument, is impossible here as her birth name had not been added to the article prior to this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks EvergreenFir. Aroundthewayboy I ask that you stop attacking me and my motives here and on other pages. I've edited articles on transgender people and topics before and no one has ever attacked me, except for anonymous transphobic editors. There are only so many ways you can say "born in x" and USA Today and The National Post are regarded as good quality sources with a reputation for fact checking. --NeilN talk to me 08:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
If USA Today has such a crack team of fact checkers, why did the author of the USA Today piece (by far the "best" source for this alleged fact) confirm that Wikipedia was her main source for this alleged fact? She just responded to someone's Tweet asking "was Wikipedia your source for Laverne's birth name in this article? http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/09/01/best-summer-ever-iggy-azalea-brenton-thwaites-lizzy-caplan-john-green-laverne-cox/14747241/ Would help settle a debate. Thx!" She replied:
                               "Donna Freydkin @freydkin 2h2 hours ago

                               Yes.The name was up there and out there long before I wrote the story.It still is."
She is incorrect that the name was "out there" anywhere other than Wikipedia and one obscure Alabama blog. However, the relevant issue is that this journalist who your entire argument hangs on admitted that she used Wikipedia as her primary source. THAT is a huge circularity problem.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


  • I fail to recognize a problem in sharing the birth name in this article. The birth name is used in two sources which seem to meet WP:RS.
  1. Dekel, Jon (August 20, 2014). "'I'm not interested in being the only voice': Laverne Cox on transforming TV with her breakout Orange Is the New Black role". National Post. Retrieved September 5, 2014.
  2. Freydkin, Donna (September 1, 2014). "Best summer ever - 5 names flying high on success". USA Today. Retrieved September 5, 2014.
I see no one saying that these sources are not reliable and no one providing any evidence that the subject of the article is suppressing knowledge of their birth name. If someone is making an argument that all or most transgender people seek to hide their birth names then I find that argument strange. Without evidence that this particular person wishes for her birth name to be suppressed, I cannot support an WP:IDENTITY argument for removing this information. Generally, I would be supportive of protection for people's identifies when there is evidence that they want any other names dissociated from their public persona. I agree with Aroundthewayboy's view that contentious information about identity is often removed from Wikipedia even when it has sources, but I cannot recognize any reason here why the birth name should be viewed as contentious. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Even if Cox wanted her birth name suppressed I would not support removing it from this article. Wikipedia does not only document the subject's desired "public persona". --NeilN talk to me 14:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
NeilN There have been cases in which personal information about the subjects of articles has been removed when it was made public in a malicious way with intent to harm the subject of the article. Wikipedia does not seek to propagate harassment campaigns that have some minor presence in reliable sources. There are cases when common sense and editorial discretion override thoughtless parroting of reliable sources. No one has made any argument that this is a case for editorial discretion, but if anyone did, I hope that you would be open minded in hearing it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry I have had discussions with several new editors who have indicated Cox wants the name removed. However each time I have pointed out the name is cited properly, using sources that bear no ill-intent toward the subject. I did agree that the bolded name should be removed from the lead. I am uncomfortable with the subject having the power to completely remove a standard biographical detail. This is not a lack of "common sense" or the "thoughtless parroting of reliable sources". --NeilN talk to me 14:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
NeilN You seem to want to frame this as a process of the manual of style, and that is irrelevant to me. I am only interested in identifying all available information about harassment and claims of potentially illegal breach of protected personal information. I fear that I am failing to communicate to you as I wish that I could. By "parroting" and "common sense" I intended to draw attention to the relative lack of importance of editing text as compared to a claim that the material is faulty, stolen, or being used in an illegal way. I am unsure whether these claims exist and I am not sure to whom you have talked or why. I have no doubt that you followed routine Wikipedia editing process but I am not clear on what complaints have been made or from whom they have originated.
Can you please share all the information that you have which supports the assertion that this person wants her birth name removed? Do you have reason to believe that the subject of the article is expressing a complaint of harm due to your actions? Do you think that you are using Wikipedia as a vehicle for harming this person? What reasons exist to believe that anyone is doing these things?
Please share all the information you have from the subject of this article and her personal representatives about the harm coming from this Wikipedia article. If we get a reliable claim that the subject of this article is being harassed then we should have a discussion about the extent to which Wikipedia should promote the harassment campaign. If you are uncomfortable with the subject of the article requesting protection from a harassment campaign then just share what you know and I will get comments from others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: I have never framed this as a MOS issue, I have always regarded it as a content issue. Also, I have been careful to identify the other editors as new editors as the subject has no confirmed Wikipedia account. Aside from the editors on this page, there' this (note my unanswered response) and this. Questioning if I think I'm using Wikipedia as vehicle to harm this person borders between absurd and offensive. --NeilN talk to me 15:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
NeilN Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ms. Cox does not appear to wish to hide her gender status, thus it is reasonable for Wikipedia to indicate that status, including birth name. Were she one who intended not to make her status known, I would be more inclined to avoid mentioning the birth name. I see no "maliciousness" in mentioning that name, including in the lead. Collect (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


Laverne has mentioned repeatedly in the press that she does not want to be referred to by the name assigned to her at birth. For example, in this article that she wrote in the Huffington Post, she writes about how when she was contemplating suicide she wanted to include instructions in her suicide note to not be referred to by that name. There are other examples of the deep disrespect and psychological harm that she asserts this misnaming does.
"I was going to write that I shouldn't be referred to by the name on my birth certificate but by the name that reflects my female identity -- that is, my legal name, the name I took after I dropped my old first name. ("Laverne" was my middle name, and "Cox" was my last name at birth.) I basically didn't want to be disrespected and misgendered in my death, as all too often happens to transgender folks in news reports on our deaths."
Her deadname being once reported in an obscure blog interview with her mother is very different from it being trumpeted in her Wikipedia entry, which is the very first search result for her name.
If it was not the editors' intentions to deeply disrespect her, it is certainly the effect of their actions. I can't be bothered to get into an edit war, but you will be the ones who have to sleep at night knowing how you've publicly disrespected her on such a sensitive topic, one that literally drove her to the brink of suicide. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Use of emotive words like 'misgender' and 'deadname' in this kind of debate is entirely unhelpful. Whilst it is a sensitive issue, Wikipedia is not censored, and acknowledging that someone had previously been known by another name is not a personal attack. Simply pretending that a person never went by some other name is just an attempt to erase history. Of course that does not justify use of a previous name as if it were the current name (and in the case of articles about transgendered persons this applies also to use of personal pronouns), however it is entirely appropriate to indicate in the lead of an article previous names by which a person has been known. As much as it might feel uncomfortable to some people, the only condition for an article to include a person's previous name that was later changed (for any reason), is if that previous name is identified in reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The only source that listed her alleged birth name prior to its inclusion on Wikipedia was ONE interview with her mother, published in an obscure Alabama web site. The subsequent use of that name in more mainstream sources only happened AFTER it was inserted into Wikipedia, and only in journalistically weak sections of these publications (the "Life" section of USA Today, for example), by entertainment writers who most likely used Wikipedia as a source for the sketchy background bio. This is a huge circularity problem, since WP is essentially MAKING this info publicly known. I suggest emailing the journalists in question and asking them if they used Wikipedia as the source for her birth name. In fact, I just emailed one of them.
As for using emotive words like misgender and deadname -- 'misgender' comes directly from Laverne herself. I didn't think of 'deadname' as emotive, since it is used so commonly in trans discussions, but I guess I can see how it might be construed as such by some. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia's policies, the quality of the sources is the only consideration here. I'm not sure that it's verifiable that other sources necessarily got the name from Wikipedia. Is that explicitly stated in those sources??
I don't see any evidence that the subject of the article considers their transgender status to be humiliating, nor would there be cause for humiliation in the mere fact that a person's parents gave a person a particular name at birth. Even if it were the case that Ms Cox felt humiliated by the mere fact that she was once known by another name, that still would not be any different to an article about any person in the public eye who simply doesn't like something that has been reported about them. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here anyway, since Ms Cox' apparent reference to humiliation in the quote you provided appears to be in reference to a scenario in which, in the event of her death, her birthname were to be used as if it were her current name.
By all means, if there is a legitimate problem with the sources, then those should be addressed. More broadly, editorial decisions should not be based on emotive terms or assertions about what is 'typical' of transgendered persons, which can be just as offensive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I certainly do not see how acknowledging the existence of a different birthname of a transgendered person is "potentially libellous". Such could be the case where the person's status as a transgendered person were not already known. But that is not the case here. It is not mandatory for a transgendered person to have changed their name since birth, but nor is it remotely surprising.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
VERIFIABILITY is paramount on Wikipedia. Now with that in mind, has Cox denied this birth name or has Cox implicitly acknowledged that this assertion is correct? It seems to me that the latter is the case. Any evidence that Cox acknowledges this birthname goes further to WP:V and only serves to amplify the Streisand effect that is in force here. What I am saying is that it doesn't matter whether the sourcing was weak to begin with (it wasn't) but now we have at least three reliable secondary sources that agree on this fact in combination with Cox's own acknowledgements makes it verifiable beyond the shadow of a doubt. Any other reason to keep it hidden fails WP:NOTCENSORED so you have not succeeded in presenting any valid argument whatsoever for omission. Elizium23 (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
True, except there has been no verification of the identify of the Wikipedia editor who claimed to be Laverne Cox.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hm, there are two issues here -- one is about respecting her assertions that disclosing this kind of information is personally harmful and harassing to her. I personally think Wikipedia should have a policy of respecting living trans peoples' wishes in this regard, but I am not able to unilaterally create Wikipedia policy in that regard.
However, the second argument is more pertinent, which concerns the fact that this alleged information is WP:CIRCULAR. The sourcing was extremely weak to begin with, and then the "reliable secondary sources" were fourth-rate journalists who merely paraphrased her Wikipedia entry. Therefore, Wikipedia becomes the main source for this alleged fact, which only becomes repeated because of Wikipedia including it. Circularity.
I am not Laverne Cox, so it is not a Streisand effect for me to defend her. As for her writing about it herself, that has not been confirmed as her identity. So, again, no Streisand Effect.
I am confused as to why certain editors weighing in here go to extreme verbal lengths to avoid using her appropriate gender pronouns. I can only assume the best of faith as to why that might be. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has policies about biographies about living people, but there is no requirement to make special rules just for trans people. Despite the emotive assertion, there's no evidence that simply stating the previous name of a person that is already in other sources constitutes 'harassment' or 'harm'. There may be any number of things that are in articles that people in the public eye don't like or may even find embarrassing or humiliating, but that is not the benchmark for inclusion. The benchmark for inclusion is reliable sources. There is no indication that the available sources were produced with any intent to cause any kind of harm. It has also not been established that the source of the information was itself derived from Wikipedia, since obviously Wikipedia got it from somewhere else and later sources could also have gotten it from the same source. It is entirely unremarkable that a trans person had a different name at birth. If the name has appeared in reliable sources, it can be included.
I'm not aware of the supposed 'extreme verbal lengths' to use incorrect pronouns, but if that happens in the article, it's not difficult to rectify.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I am in the process of establishing the circularity. I, of course, welcome other attempts to TRULY evaluate circularity (by, for example, investigating the writing of these two sloppy entertainment-section articles to determine whether they used Wikipedia as their source, as they APPEAR to do). Aroundthewayboy (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, the author of the USA Today piece (by far the "best" source for this alleged fact) just responded to someone's Tweet asking "was Wikipedia your source for Laverne's birth name in this article? http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/09/01/best-summer-ever-iggy-azalea-brenton-thwaites-lizzy-caplan-john-green-laverne-cox/14747241/ Would help settle a debate. Thx!" She replied:
"Donna Freydkin @freydkin 2h2 hours ago
Yes.The name was up there and out there long before I wrote the story.It still is."
So, she admits that Wikipedia is the source for her name, although she is under the impression that it was "out there" already (without any corroboration of this assertion, which speaks to her journalistic bona fides). Her tweet confirms that this is a huge circularity problem. Now you only have one other "mainstream" source, and he probably also used Wikipedia as his ultimate source. I emailed him, so let's see if he's brave enough to admit using Wikipedia (if that is what he did). Aroundthewayboy (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
@Aroundthewayboy: It is somewhat hypocritical of you to be using the term "fourth-rate journalists". WP:BLP applies to everyone, everywhere. --NeilN talk to me 16:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The far more germane matter is that this USA Today entertainment "journalist" has admitted that she used Wikipedia as her main source for her alleged birth name. This confirms what I have argued from the start, which is that this is a HUGE WP:CIRCULAR problem. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
How do you explain this source? --NeilN talk to me 16:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
As I have said six million times, the only source for this alleged info is THAT obscure Alabama blog, which has been taken down and is only available on the Wayback Machine (so perhaps it was taken down because of editorial reevaluation of this fact? Threatof a lawsuit? Fact checking? Who knows!). A Wayback machine copy of a removed obscure regional blog is THIN THIN THIN sourcing for something. What most likely happened is that someone read this blog, inserted the alleged birthname in Laverne's Wikipedia, then a couple journalists who use Wikipedia as a source repeated that alleged information. The evidence is mounting that my version of events is more and more likely to be the correct interpretation. That is, as I have written twice before, a HUGE circularity problem. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
To clarify: the editors of the Alabama blog did not remove the whole entry that is cited as a source. They ONLY REMOVED THIS BIT OF INFORMATION. That is very telling that there was probably a deliberate editorial decision to remove problematic, improperly sourced information. That info was all they removed, which suggests there was a problem with the info. If you go to the blog entry now, it does not include her alleged birthname. If the editors of the FIRST AND ONLY REAL SOURCE for this information decided to remove this information, this information is essentially unsourced. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It speaks to your impartiality on the matter that you feel the need to characterize Al.com as a "obscure Alabama blog". --NeilN talk to me 16:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop attacking me. You are ignoring the substantive argument I am making and the substantive evidence I am amassing, and instead resorting to ad hominems. I really don't care if you think I am "hypocritical" or "impartial," and neither should anyone else. Reminding you to WP:AGF. Do not try to guess my intentions.
I am really curious how other editors will respond to the facts, because I think it is clearer and clearer that the only source for this alleged information is one entry in al.com that was then edited by its editors to remove this information (probably due to some sort of editorial reevaluation of its veracity). Aroundthewayboy (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not attacking you. I'm pointing out your attacks on other people and mischaracterizations. You're welcome to explain why your characterization of al.com as an "obscure Alabama blog" is accurate. Also, I've emailed the newspaper asking why the info was deleted. --NeilN talk to me 16:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You are correct that al.com is a better source than I originally thought it was, based on its weird web site. Unlike you, apparently, I occasionally make mistakes and admit them. Kind of like al.com when it removed this poorly sourced information from its blog entry.
I am not interested in your opinion about me personally, nor is anyone else. Please stop attacking me with ad hominems like 'hypocritical' and 'impartial,' and please assume good faith, per Wikipedia community guidelines. I am trying my best to do so with you.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that I've removed the info until sourcing can be cleared up. --NeilN talk to me 17:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Great! Have a fabulous Sunday. It's a gorgeous day and I'm outta here! Aroundthewayboy (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
One of the journalists "admits" that their source was Wikipedia? There's some loaded language right there. The journalist confirmed their source. Your repeated statement about 'threat of a lawsuit' is also inappropriate not only because legal threats are inappropriate here, but also because it is not libellous to print someone's original name as correctly provided in another source (even if it is determined that the source does not meet Wikipedia's threshold for reliable sources).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

al.com source

I received a reply back from the reporter. Points:

  • The name is accurate and was conveyed by Cox's mother during a phone interview
  • The story ran on the front page of the Mobile Press-Register
  • A few months after, Cox's publicist emailed the reporter and asked if the birth name could be omitted, saying that Cox has never disclosed the name and it was offensive to trans people to print their birth name
  • The reporter and her editor decided to delete the name as a courtesy

So the name is accurate, was published on the front page of a print newspaper, and was not retracted due to any factual issues. --NeilN talk to me 18:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It is offensive to trans people to print their birth name without their explicit permission. It's not the same as including the birth name of a person who's known by a stage name, because that person still uses the birth name in their private life (I'm quite sure, for example, that Beyoncé addresses Jay-Z as "Shawn", not as "Jay-Z", when they're at home in their living room arguing about whose turn it is to take out the recycling.) In the case of a transgender person, however, the use and dissemination of their birth name is a tactic that's quite regularly used to undermine the legitimacy of their gender identity (i.e. "even though you want me to call you Amanda, I know that the name on your birth certificate is George so I reserve the right to continue to call you George whenever I want", even if the same speaker would have respected the wishes of a George who'd legally changed his name to Benjamin but kept a male gender identity.) And we've even seen the argument made in Wikipedia naming debates that articles about transgender people should be permanently locked into their legal birth name regardless of any naming considerations that would be applicable to any other person — thankfully that didn't pass, but it's been argued more than once. So in the case of a transgender person, we have to consider the issue — unique to transgender people and not relevant to most other cases of a celebrity whose birth name isn't the name they're most widely known by — of whether publishing the birth name is causing or compounding harm to the subject.
As a rule, the only time we ever really have a legitimate reason to publish the birth name is in the relatively rare case (e.g. Chaz Bono, Laura Jane Grace, Alec Butler) where the person had already established encyclopedic notability under their birth name before coming out as transgender, such that it would be misrepresenting the context of their notability to omit it. (And even then, we still have to be careful not to dwell on the birth name any more than we absolutely have to.)
I certainly get why people might want to know what name Cox's parents gave her at birth — but in the case of a transgender person, the harm issue means that we have to pay attention to the higher standard of whether there's a reason why anybody but Cox and her parents needs to know the information. It creates unique issues that aren't shared with most other cases of a person who's publicly known by something other than their birth name, so it has to be judged by a different standard than those other cases. And furthermore, there are many situations where even if information is reliably sourced, we still defer to the privacy and dignity of the article subject by not repeating it on Wikipedia (e.g. information that was a violation of the applicable privacy laws for that source to ever publish in the first place, the precise intimate details of a sex scandal, and on and so forth.)
But ultimately, I'm left with a question: how on earth does one square the fact that the original source withdrew the information, on the grounds that it's offensive to trans people to print their birth names without permission, with the notion that it's in any way appropriate for us to continue to seek out other sources so that we can continue to publish that same information? The same standards that apply to the original source apply to us too — if it's inappropriate and offensive for a newspaper to publish it, it can't possibly be perfectly acceptable for us to disseminate the same information even after the original source withdrew it.
"Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." This is a policy of Wikipedia, and as it is a policy that means it does not change based on someone's feelings on the matter. (Blckfish23 (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC))
So for those reasons, the question that needs to be answered here isn't whether it's possible to source Cox's birth name — the question is whether there's any substantive reason why it's genuinely important information that we need to include here. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The original source did not withdraw the name on the grounds that it's offensive to trans people to print their birth names without permission. That's a complete projection on your part. The publicist asserted that and the newspaper withdrew the name as a courtesy. And, as I've consistently stated on other biographies, certain biographical information is standard and should be present in all well written biographies. --NeilN talk to me 20:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Generally speaking, a person's birth name is WP:TRIVIA, not essential information that we must include in all cases. There are, for example, people with Wikipedia articles who weren't born with the same name they're known by today but for whom their original name isn't verifiable in any reliable sources — e.g. women who are known by a married name but for whom no reliable source ever revealed their maiden surname at all, writers who are known only by a pen name but for whom no reliable source ever actually published the name they use in daily life, etc. It's certainly information that we like to include if that's possible and not causing undue harm to the topic — but it's not so critically important that we'd be entitled to dig into primary sources to find it, or to disseminate the name regardless of any concern for whether it's causing undue harm to the subject. It's gravy in a biographical article, not meat. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You really think Beyoncé and Jay-Z take out their own recycling? Anyway... It could be offensive to anyone who has changed their legal name to have their original name printed. It's offensive to some cultures to mention the name of a person who has died. It's offensive to many people to use expletives. Wikipedia is not censored. The claims about 'harm' are largely overstated in these emotive debates. A transphobic person isn't going to be nice to a trans person unless they know their birth name, and a trans person generally wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be giving much credence to the opinions of a bigot anyway. I'm not entirely convinced that it is necessary to print the birth name, but the arguments against it are not encyclopaedic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We should do the same courtesy. Clearly the newspaper did not consider it worthy of printing, upon further consideration; for whatever reason. That means we should not use Al.com as a source for that. In addition, we should take it as an argument not to print it; in fact two argument (1) the newspaper withdrew it (2) the subject's publicist requested it be removed. Neither of those is completely conclusive, and if there were plenty of other sources, we should still run it, but their number seems to be quite limited, so until there are numerous reliable sources for it, we should leave it out. --GRuban (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A newspaper's withdrawal should be taken into account. A publicist's request definitely should not be. --NeilN talk to me 22:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

this entire article is fantasy. a person was born. that person's given name at birth and all aspects of the transformation have been removed as if the only thing that matters is the new identity as "transgender", which itself is explicit that there was a prior identity. for the sake of politics and many references to feelings, all essential facts have been removed. who actually wants their birthdate published for the whole world to see? would anyone posting here want their birthday published for the whole world, especially considering that is one of the primary means of obtaining access to all other private information? yet there it is on every wikipage. it is there because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. the only information contained in this article is about a pretend entertainment identity a person assumed as an adult. how can this be even remotely considered a legitimate encyclopedia article? is this fiction or is it about a real person? if a celebrity's feelings will be hurt by the details of his/her life neing included in an encyclopedia, should there even be an article about that person? anyone can go on facebook or twitter or social media and obtain a celebrity's self promotional fantasy self portrayal. wikipedia is not necessary for that and using wikipedia for that is contrary to the stated purpose of this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.192.193.143 (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

imdb.com source

2017/08/02: Would IMDB be an appropriate source for the prior first name? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1209545/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm#overview Is this one of the IMDB areas that are considered citable?

I personally came to Wikipedia first because I wanted to know the prior first name and I knew that Wikipedia wouldn't fail me! :-) With that in mind, please simply add this information. Wikipedia is the best one-stop-shop when you are writing a paper and need citations! I understand that those who empathize with her desire to omit this information and noted that other Wikipedia articles of those who are transgendered "It is standard Wikipedia practice in bios of living trans people to not include their birth names unless that is common knowledge in mainstream sources". This is short-sighted. With this in effect, a young person doing a paper on Chelsea Manning or Caitlyn Jenner 5 years from now will be able to note their original first names, but not for Laverne Cox? I personally find it interesting to see what name a person will choose when it is within their own power and it is expected of them to do so!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlyn_Jenner

Someone please make this comment look pretty! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.25.237 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent name-related edits

I'm guess this is the source of the recent edits regarding Cox's name. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the insertion once again. Per WP:BLP such information, especially in possibly controversial context, needs a high-quality reliable source (see WP:RS). Except from 2 reviewer edits, I am uninvolved with this article and plan to stay that way - nothing to do with censorship. If you are interested in adding this information, please provide such a reliable source and/or join the discussion in the previous thread. GermanJoe (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

GermanJoe, a bit late but you might want to read the Birth name section on the talk page. We do have a solid source but editors have decide to leave the name out of the article as a courtesy to Cox. --NeilN talk to me 14:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It clearly is censorship and incomplete information on the individual's profile. (Blckfish23 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC))

Pronoun reverting

A series of IP edits have been made, altering some or all of the feminine pronouns in the article to male ones. The IPs in question are 2602:304:AEB0:FF89:4D80:21B6:82DC:549C, 2602:304:AEB0:F869:91EE:25E8:1EA8:EE9A and 2605:E000:9C41:C400:34FB:FAA2:DF68:A9F2. In all cases they have been reverted and warned, with varying degrees of civility. I'm no expert, but it seems pretty likely that these are the work of the same user, given the similarity of both the IPs and the edits. Can anyone who knows more about tracking these things confirm, and anyone who knows more about WP policy advise who it should be reported to? It doesn't seem severe enough for the Incident page or obvious enough for the vandalism page, but something needs to be done. Euchrid (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Euchrid: If the disruption persists, consider WP:RFPP. --NeilN talk to me 23:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the advice. Euchrid (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Since things seem to be escalating, I've made the request for semi-protection.Euchrid (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Few disruptive users as well such as Heckto35. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
He's back! and using this address: 2602:306:34AB:DDC0:BD80:3A46:4A74:5DD5 L3X1 (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
That's the same IP address that has been reverting pronouns on other pages of Transgender people, such as Abby Stein Ovrim (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Date of Birth

According to Google, Cox's birthdate is May 29, 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.93.199 (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Google scrapes information from other sources and does no fact checking. --NeilN talk to me 02:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Laverne Cox has a twin brother, M Lamar. Since his birthdate is May 29, 1984, and is not in dispute, that automatically makes Laverne's birthdate the same. Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.167.30.84 (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What's your source for Lamar's birthday? --NeilN talk to me 15:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: So this isn't a credible source? Bio.com - http://www.biography.com/people/laverne-cox ? Here's some investigative speculation also: http://www.who2.com/laverne-cox-was-born-in-1972-were-pretty-sure/ --Jennica✿ Talk 07:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Even confirming Lamar's birth date doesn't confirm Laverne's. It's unlikely, but possible, that one was born five minutes before midnight with the other being born after midnight and thus on a subsequent day. As statistically unlikely as this is, it's a possibility. Laverne may have been born at 11:45 PM on May, 28 or at 12:05 PM on May, 29 at 12:05 AM. "that automatically makes Laverne's birth date the same? Nope! (67.239.47.145 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC))

This source has now been used to add a birth date for Cox of May 29, 1984. General Ization Talk 03:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

19 June I am adding birthname and dob bc I have sources

Laverne's birth name is Roderick Laverne Cox. This is the source
-http://www.cincinnati.com/story/tvandmediablog/2014/10/03/laverne-cox-orange-is-the-new-black-northern-kentucky-university-lgbtq-netflix/16657255/
-http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/09/01/best-summer-ever-iggy-azalea-brenton-thwaites-lizzy-caplan-john-green-laverne-cox/14747241/

Laverne's DOB is 5/29/84. This is the source:
http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/television/im-not-interested-in-being-the-only-voice-laverne-cox-on-transforming-tv-with-her-breakout-orange-is-the-new-black-role
where it says "On May 29, her 30th birthday, Cox was informed she’d be the first transgender person to appear on the cover of Time magazine.".

I am adding these 2 facts. I read the above thoughts. I do not mean to be insensitive. For this resaon I put her birthname in the infobox and not in the intro sentence. 50.246.91.141 (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

While you did provide a source for her birth year, I doubt its reliability on this matter. Laverne Cox stated last year that she began hormone therapy 16 years prior (in 1998). In the same speech, she also that she moved to NYC for her third year of college, and that after moving to NYC she began hormone therapy.[4] This means that at the earliest, she was in her third year of college in 1998, making a 1984 birth very improbable. This source has a really good run-down on why 1984 is almost certainly not her year of birth. -- Irn (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Why is"who2" reliable? WHO backs it? Nytimes? usatoday? How do you know laverne isnt lying when she says she began hormone therapy in 1998/has had it for 16yrs? She could be saying whatever to be accepted.
We need someone in mississippi to get the birth records for laverne and her twin brother. ::50.246.91.141 (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
No, we don't need that. And we don't know if she's lying or not, but WP:ABOUTSELF applies here. We'd need a good RS to say otherwise. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes we do need that as birth certificates are proof. Or someone who went to school with her back then as him/roderick and upload the class picture or yearbook photo.

I also read wpaboutseself and rule #1 of it you should re read.
"the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim"

We do have reason to not believe laverne's speech as she could be distorting things so her truth isnt found out about.
It is an exceptional claim that she was on hormones for 16 yrs. Medicare pays for that? And in mississippi? I doubt it.

And again, WHO BACKS WHO2 that it is a reliable source? 50.246.91.141 (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
No birth certificates. Read WP:BLPPRIMARY. Also who2 isn't used as a source in the article EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Who2 has a professional research staff. [5] And, as many people obfuscate their real age, it should be treated as an exceptional claim if it's disputed. --NeilN talk to me 16:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
What you're disputing and discussing here is personal medical information. What makes you think you have a right to know that or have access to that information? - Alison ❤ 18:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This is very poorly sourced info, as described at length above by me and other users who went to great lengths to identify the (unreliable) source of this info and subsequent circularity problem where certain reporters used Wikipedia as a source, then WP editors cited the reporters whose only source was Wikipedia. You cannot unilaterally reverse the consensus that was achieved after extensive debate above. You cited the EXACT SAME sources as had been debunked above. You could start a discussion to reinsert this info with NEW and DIFFERENT sources, but until that happens you should respect the excruciatingly achieved consensus above and not include info about her alleged birth name. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The justification for removing the material is the instruction at the top of this page:
"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page"
Since the above extensive debate found that material to be poorly sourced, and the anonymouse WP user did not offer any new sources, it seems that reinserting the alleged birthname counts as "poorly sourced" "material about a living person" that "must be removed immediately." Getting a new, better source that cannot be traced back to Wikipedia (circularity) would be an entirely different matter.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Aroundthewayboy, let's not be disingenuous here. We do have a solid source for the birth name (an interview with Cox's mother) but it's been left out of the article as a courtesy. --NeilN talk to me 21:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hm, ok, that's a fair characterization of the above debate. I just don't think an anonymous new contributor should unilaterally reverse something that we put so much effort into debating.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
There's no way 1984 is correct, she stated in an interview that she was attending college in New York City and "It was there, as a student in the early 1990s, that I began frequenting a few of the city’s nightclubs". --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


@General Ization: Looks like we both reverted that for the same reason ([6]) at one point but you're right that the biography.com source has a birth date. I tried to remember why my brain said to revert birth year and this was the discussion I was thinking of. There's disagreement on the actual birth year and I don't think we reached consensus on the issue. I'm fine with your revert, just wanted to explain myself (and acknowledge that you were right). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This source has now been used to add a birth date for Cox of May 29, 1984. General Ization Talk 03:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

69.67.94.203 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to edit this because the date of this woman's birth was the wrong year. He or she wasn't born on 1984 but on 1972. & also people say that wikipedia is a very non-reliable source because it mostly has lies & people who add facts to this website are often called vandalists because they add the truth but Gilliam has their editing privileges withheld & he often persecutes them by telling them that they did vandalism when they did NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NeilN talk to me 17:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @RCLeahcar:. See above discussions as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing Important Information

Age (45) and real name (Roderick Laverne Cox) are both missing for some reason. 172.164.46.112 (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

First: It's her "birth name", not her "real name". Laverne Cox is her real name. And there has been extensive discussion about both topics above. Basically, the birth name is not relevant and citing it would be disrespectful. And the age isn't verifiable. 81.255.178.243 (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
We don't include unverified claims about what a person's "real name" is, regardless of whether the subject is transgender or not. If you want the information included in Wikipedia, you need to show a reliable source which verifies the claim as true. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

A quick search reveals that many sources list the birth name Roderick. I think editors are pretending that the birth name can't be reliably sourced because they don't want it to be in the article. Which to me is just silly, that you have to hide transgender people's birth names. Who else gets totally basic information withheld on the grounds that somebody thinks it might hurt their feelings to see it in print? 63.152.132.145 (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "any web page that exists at all" and reliable sources. Only certain specific types of references would be acceptable referencing for a claim about her birth name, and the "sources" you're talking about are not those kinds of sources. Tweets are not reliable sources. User-generated discussion forums, not reliable sources. Opinion columns by people using the claimed birth name as a form of attack against the validity of transgender identity, not reliable sources. Celebrity gossip blogs, not reliable sources. Reader comment threads, not reliable sources. The only acceptable reliable source for a claim about Laverne Cox's birth name would be a piece of journalism, in real media, in which Laverne Cox herself personally states her own birth name on the record — and that type of source simply does not exist to support the claim. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source

I keep getting reverted when I add a reference stating that her birth name was Laverne Cox. Any thoughts on whether this reference is a reliable source?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel like the subtitle "Exposing and combating liberal media bias" makes it pretty clear that this is a heavily biased (and therefore unreliable) news source. I would not be comfortable using it as a reference on an article of this nature. Euchrid (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
But I'm only using it to reveal her male birth name, nothing else. Georgia guy (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this information listed nowhere else? If you really feel the need to include it, and I'm not convinced that it belongs in the article at all, given the sensitive nature of the information, can it not be found somewhere that doesn't have an explicitly transphobic agenda?Euchrid (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
But why is a birth name of "sensitive nature"? Everyone else who publicly performs under something other than their birth name has that information in an encyclopedia entry as a matter of course. 63.152.132.145 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Being a trans woman is not a performance. Trans women are women.[7]
  • Calling a transgender person by the wrong name makes them more likely to commit suicide.[8]
  • Perhaps calling cis people by their "birth names" is also a matter of a "sensitive nature". I for one make it a point to call people only what they want to be called, regardless of their trans status. If you want to remove "birth names" from articles about cis people, I will not stop you. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Clearly the "perform" thing was a reference to professional acting. I mean, come on. 63.229.174.237 (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The reason that a transgender person's birth name is of an especially sensitive nature, in a way that cisgender people's birth names are not, is that continuing to use the transgender person's old name is in and of itself one of the most common tactics used to delegitimize transgender people's identities. There are people who have no problem whatsoever referring to Portia de Rossi as Portia instead of Amanda, but suddenly insist on still referring to Caitlyn Jenner as Bruce instead of Caitlyn — the only difference between the two being that Portia de Rossi isn't trans. That's why we have to insist on a higher standard of privacy in the case of transgender people than we do in the case of celebrities who are known by stage names: transgender people's old names are frequently used to attack or harm them. Bearcat (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Bare acknowledgment of that piece of information on a web site dedicated to listing pieces of information would not be an attack.63.229.174.237 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Nobody said it was. But because other people can use the information as a form of attack against Laverne Cox, we have a responsibility not to participate in being a vector of that information's dissemination in the absence of top-notch reliable sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Her birthday is today, she is 47?

Don't know if pagesix is reliable, but this article is saying she's 47 https://pagesix.com/2019/05/29/laverne-cox-is-fab-at-47/slide-1/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyheretoeditallstars2 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
Yes, that's much more like the kind of source we needed. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
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)
"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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
I have no objections to that. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 16:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (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)

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)

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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Come on, it's completely ideological. Her birth name was ****. 208.126.201.53 (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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

article links

I do not know why instant, graphical, and prurient pics appear in this article upon hovering over genital reconstruction? Who is this helping? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.161.59 (talk) 00:06, 17 Feb 2022 (UTC)

The article on genital reconstruction has pictures of genitals. That should not be all that surprising. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laverne_Cox/Archive_1&oldid=1220587502"