Talk:Christine Jorgensen/Archive 2

80:

body appear more girlish, to better fit the gender she felt herself to be. But the introduction only refers to her as "she" (which is fine), and does not ever say that she had a boyish body at first, or that the people around her viewed her as a boy; and that this was the reasons she had surgery. To me, none of this is obvious, and I had to read through the article to figure it out for sure (is it just me?). I therefore tried to mend the introduction, adding "raised as a boy", but these attempts have been repeatedly reverted. Is there really no way to make her reasons for having surgery a little more apparent in the introduction? Am I the only one who had this problem? --

1773:

don't apply to women. The First Amendment only says "Congress shall make no law" but that doesn't mean the president is free to violate someone's freedom of speech. This is, in fact, the whole reason why there had to be an RfC in the first place: "living" had been in the guideline for quite a while, and when asked to decide whether it applied to dead people the community did not decide that it did apply to all dead people nor that it applied only to living people, but that it applied to all living people and might be extended to some dead people on a case-to-case basis, just as I've quoted above.

1676:. (Contrary to what Bones says in the edit conflict, she really doesn't seem to consider herself to have been a man at any point in her life in any sense but legally. The vast majority of the time she mentions the former name it's in quotes; she almost never refers to herself as her former name.) That's in my opinion a reasonable reason to exclude it, which is balanced by no encyclopedic interest whatsoever of including it. It's purely trivia. Nobody ever referred to her as her former name in reliable sources until after her transition because it was her transition that made her notable. 1804:" is what must be determined on a case-by-case basis, not the applicability of the entire MOS:DEADNAME policy. That, as is stated at the top of the closing statement, did not change. Bear in mind this is framed regarding BLP privacy issues, so you must come up with some credible reason why publishing Christine's birth name violates one of the privacy-related tenets of WP:BLP. You can't use the "not notable prior" part of DEADNAME since it doesn't apply here (it has other issues too, but it not applying is the main one). Per the closing statement, it must be that she was 1246:." In other words, it does not apply in this situation because this is not a page related to a living person. In addition, the name George was used by Christine herself in her autobiography, some editions of which have it on the cover. She made it notable by doing so, and failing to use it violates the "unless they prefer their former name be used for past events" section of MOS:DEADNAME even if she is for some reason being treated as a living person that any part of said policy applies to. Put simply, Christine did not regard herself as 273:

stupid, bigoted, narrowminded, irrational ones -- to God. Often this is done through the intermediate fallacy of equating some religious text or dogma to the views of God, but in this case even that fake authority isn't available, merely the sheer inane stupidity of some anonymous editor. If there is a God, and that God assigned some pronoun to Christine Jorgensen at birth, we don't know what that pronoun was, but given the facts we have about Ms. Jorgensen, the most likely candidate, if God is at all rational, is "she". --

1396:, there is no policy-based reason for your revert, and based on your previous good contributions at trans-related articles, I'm surprised at your reverts at this article. You've been around long enough to know you you need to provide a guideline- or policy-based explanation to revert a positive contribution to an article which improves the understanding of the topic, and which is fully policy-compliant. Please self-revert; there is no basis for your recent reverts to the article. As 31: 952:

described herself as having once been a young boy who was called George, not that she was always someone called Christine. The whole "deadnaming" thing assumes there's only one way a trans person could possibly respond to their birth name (ie, acting like people will use it for some kind of true-name magic if they know it), and in doing so treats trans identity as homogeneous and discards anyone who doesn't fit the proscribed mould. This is

1706:

is common in an autobiography, as, since the author is equipped with the pronoun "I," they very rarely have to state their name unless they are quoting someone talking about them. She actually describes "George Jorgenssen" as her "rightful name" prior to legally changing it on P. 131, and I can't find any assertion that she disliked the use of her birthname in any context except when it was used to describe her

1749:

she's talking about her legal name. And she insists pretty clearly throughout that she was always a girl, recounting on text page 8-9 at length an incident where she insisted she was a girl to her grandmother when she was five. The introduction (not written by her but by Dr. Benjamin) also says she was "a little girl, not a boy (in spite of the anatomy)". As an adult, on (text) page 65 she says to her doctor,

1904:

privacy interest when published; nobody would say that someone revealing their credit card number means there is no risk to them from having their credit card number published. So in order to include it, we don't just have to establish the truth of the information, but that there is some encyclopedic reason to include it. And there is no encyclopedic reason to include this information. It's trivia.

2204: 2112: 2063: 1669:, I won't self-revert for basically the reason Rab V outlines. The recent RfC didn't reach a conclusive result and so it left the matter of whether DEADNAME applies to a particular dead person to local consensus. (Notably, it did *not* say that DEADNAME only applies to living people. That would have been option A and there was no consensus for option A either.) 197:

aunt, niece, wife, stepmother, adopted mother, lesbian partner) for any stage of her life. Don't confuse gender with sex. Gender is the brain; sex is the body. The terms I just mentioned are terms for the female gender. Terms for the female sex (which we don't use when we refer to a pre-operative trans woman) include vagina, vulva, ovary, womb, and uterus.

925:

people, including Christine herself, who describe their pre-transition life in terms of the gender they presented as, and refer to that part of their life using the name they were given at birth: it is not nearly as cut-and-dried as "calling them by their birth name is transphobic" unless you wish to argue that Christine herself was transphobic. There are

464:

summarize facts of negative receptions and reactions in all other topics. This removal questionably feels too pointed. The argument does not make sense at all: in every page there is, there would be a section that summarizes and documents how stars and celebrities (as an example) are met with both positive AND negative reactions. This is no exception.

729:. I monitor this article (and others) to make sure of it. WP also makes it abundantly clear what name she preferred: it is the title of the article, it is the first two words of the article, it is the name above her photo, and it is the name used for her every time her full name is stated in this article and in every other article... except in 1687:

is that it does, and there's explicitly no global consensus to contradict it, so it does. It's pretty simple logic, we've already explained both this fact and why we think DEADNAME applies several times, and if Bones thinks that argument is wrong it's on them to convince people; they cannot simply add their text to the page against consensus.

787:, by presenting it in her autobiography. For example, it informs the reader that she was given the same name as her father, and the incongruity of that name with the identity that she eventually took heroic measures to present, is important in helping others understand what she endured and what she accomplished. Presenting her as 1812:

transition, she repeatedly refers to it as being with "another man." P. 131, she refers to Christine as her "new name," and throughout it is clear she regards George as her old one. She does not only put "George" into quotes in the scenarios you describe. It is simply most commonly done that way because it is

1227:. The result was not that it does or doesn't apply to dead people, but that it's ambiguous. However, Jorgenson is not really an ambiguous case: she is definitely a trans woman and so our guidelines about trans people should apply to her unless you can come up with some reason why her birth name is notable. 1954:

and having others reveal it per your credit card example: it is absurd to claim that information someone has disclosed publically is still private). Since her birthname was widely circulated by both herself and others, it is notable. Since she circulated it herself, one cannot argue that she regarded

1824:

A particularly telling quote is this one: "As I often say to these persons who have the body largely of a man, and the personality of a woman, it is very hard for a normally sexed person to conceive of a man's hoping desperately that he can find a surgeon who can help him." I know this is an attitude

1787:

No, incorrect. What the RfC is referring to is that such instances must be determined on a case-by-case basis, based on normal guidelines of policy (nothing relevant), verifiability (readily sourced in RS) and notability (she used the name repeatedly in her notable autobiography, which states she was

1705:

people does not apply to a dead person. The book seems to have reached some kind of availability limit, but from the search inside you're very much misrepresenting the "said in quotes" part: these are quotes of people talking to her and using her name at the time, not just "George" in airquotes. This

1624:

What's going on here? People I respect on transgender issues (not only you) are going all sideways on this and misinterpreting gender policy for I don't know what reason. Please respect DEADNAME and apply it correctly, and please don't stand in the way of an improvement to the article which is fully

1527:

She never stopped using that name to describe herself. Your argument doesn't apply here, what you're talking about is people who backdate their post-transition name ("I was always Sharon") as opposed to use different names to describe themselves pre and post transition ("I was born as Steve and now I

1297:

Wrong venue for this discussion. As has been previously stated, several editors either not understanding, or not agreeing with how DEADNAMING has always been applied at Knowledge (XXG) does not mean that this article can be changed based on that understanding. You need to take this up directly at the

951:

This is absolute nonsense, if Christine had no problem giving her birth name on page 4 of her autobiography, she clearly had no issues with it being used, let alone regard it as an "act of violence." She chose to introduce her own story, in her own words, in a very similar manner to this article. She

745:

grew up as "Jacqueline Bouvier", we present the fact that Christine Jorgensen lived the first 25 years of her life under the name "George William Jorgensen, Jr." These are all historical and biographical facts, and we do not suppress them just to accommodate a belief that stating facts can somehow be

642:

The rule "give precedence to self-designation" refers to her gender, not her name. And as noted, her birth name is on the cover of her autobiography and is also used by her within it ("A few weeks later, I was christened George William Jorgensen, Jr., in a small neighbourhood Danish Lutheran church",

577:

The section in the MoS explicitly uses self-designation right at the start. The edit that added 'George' in "John Hansen played Christine" definitely crosses the line as deadnaming (which is an act of violence) and ignores the MoS. Even when the bio includes her life pre-transition one still uses the

126:

I noticed after writing the above that the introduction uses the word "trans woman", and that this explicitly means "woman who was assigned male at birth". From this information it should be possible to piece out the narrative, but I think many readers aren't knowledgeable enough about the subject to

79:

As the introduction stands now, I find it a little confusing. As far as I can tell from the article, she was viewed as a boy by her parents and the people around her (and largely herself?) when she was born, and while she was growing up; then later, she had sex reassignment surgery to make her boyish

1840:

Again, this is not a person who saw themselves as having a "deadname," just an old one and a new one. You have to remember this is the period where the operation was still a "sex change" and so, rather expectedly, she conceptualises herself as a man with the mind of a woman before and a woman after.

1718:

I am also not seeing consensus here: there was long-standing consensus that the name did indeed belong here, which seems to have been bulldozed past some months back to make these changes by presenting an incorrect summary of policy on the matter, which other editors seem to have taken at face value

1710:

she legally changed her name. Specifically, I assume you're talking about the parts where she's referring to news publications characterising her as a male transvestite rather than a woman. It's really easy to show that you're wrong about her not referring to herself as male prior to her transition,

1686:

Furthermore, if we've been asserting the same policy-based reason over and over on the talk page, I don't think I need to assert it yet another time when someone reverts against consensus. The core dispute here is whether DEADNAME applies to Christine Jorgensen. The consensus on the talk page so far

1512:

She was not notable while living under that name, which is what DEADNAME requires. Though DEADNAME does not explicitly apply to deceased, it also does not require former non-notable names to be included. The recent RFC decided stated that for deceased, how to use former names should be decided on a

795:

undermines that... it's historical whitewashing. You are apparently reading the article from a place of familiarity with trans identity, and already understand that, but this article isn't just for you. Furthermore, Knowledge (XXG) does not have the godlike authority to declare a name an "error" and

760:

Deadnaming is an act of violence, period. She is Christine, not George, she's always been Christine and you state yourself that this was the name she preferred. The historical fact is that being named "George" at birth was an error, and you're not stating that fact, but repeating the error by adding

479:

If we included commentary from every scholarly and semi-scholarly article that mentions Christine Jorgensen, we'd have a book about her. That isn't the purpose of Knowledge (XXG). Our purpose is to summarize the scholarly consensus about her. Furthermore, you're adding material that literally argues

196:

Please realize how to think of a trans woman. Christine Jorgensen is a woman. She had the wrong body before it was corrected with surgery, but she always had her female brain. She should be treated like one and be referred to with terms for the female gender (woman, she, her, girl, daughter, sister,

1714:

You are also wrong about the RfC. The RfC, per its closing note, elected to make no change to the existing wording, meaning it only applies to living persons. Please read the closing notes carefully: the fact that the word "living" was not removed showed that it continues to only apply as an MOS in

1241:

No, the closing statement of that RfC is clear: "We find there is no consensus for a change based on this RfC" (ie, it still does not apply to non-living people, which would have been the change) and "we also found that there were stronger policy-based arguments for A, including that WP:DEADNAME is

1199:

trans individuals. This woman is dead, so it does not apply. Secondly, Christine did not conceptualise her transition in that way, this is foisting the modern idea of a deadname (a term Merriam-Webster cites as only coming into use in 2012) on a person who lived at a time before such a concept even

675:

their birth name, just as we do for someone who marries or changes their name for any other reason. The only question is whether her birth name belongs in the lede, or just in the body of the article (and that's a valid question to debate here... WP has a policy about it). But regardless, her birth

173:

You are assuming something which many disagree with. Thus you should not change an article without proper discussion, you have no right. We need to reach a consensus on the issue and their stands 3 viewpoints. Male pronouns due to born male, female pronouns due to changed to being a female or male

149:

Before sex change it is right to use he/his/him whereas after operation then she/her etc. As such I've reinstated an edit of a previous editor who shares my view. It would appear other editors however think otherwise. Therefore I believe their should be discussion. Others I note believe male/female

1949:

to the existing policy, which, as worded, only applies to living people. That is the status quo. Any other cases of past names must be decided on a case-by-case basis in line with BLP privacy policies. Since the subject here chose to make this information public, there is no privacy interest to be

1772:

does only say explicitly that it applies to living persons. However, explicitly mentioning one group does not explicitly exclude others, especially when the underlying reasoning for the rule would not differentiate. Most of American law is written with only male pronouns but that doesn't mean laws

1474:

DEADNAME applies beyond the lead FYI, it says regarding names trans people were never notable under they "should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists." I also don't think

1261:

using the name George, which she did not: she used it to refer to a specific period of her life after she became famous. The policy applies to scenarios where someone is famous under, say, the name Sharon, but never as Steve: it doesn't work when someone famously says "I'm Sharon, and I used to be

971:

Agreed. If the article didn't tell the reader that she had to live for 25 years with the male name "George Jr." – censoring a critical part of her biography, and instead implying that she grew up with the name "Christine" – then it would commit a lie by omission, and fundamentally fail to tell her

887:

There are 2 points of view here. One is that CJ is a transgender woman; the other is that CJ is a man who arbitrarily chooses to fake himself into a "woman". The statement I'm trying to make is that the latter point of view is ignorant. I know about Knowledge (XXG)'s NPOV policy, but it applies to

1895:

We've explained this quite a few times. "DEADNAME doesn't apply to dead people" was option A on the recent RfC, and that didn't pass. Nothing passed, so we're at the status quo of "DEADNAME might apply to dead people sometimes, it's ambiguous". And there's good reason to think it applies here for

1836:

did not regard this name as something unspeakable, since she repeatedly uses it, rather than trimming it out of quotes. She gives it as her birth name. It's on the cover of some editions. The only contexts where she speaks of it being a problem are, as said, cases where she was called only George

1811:

You are cherrypicking quotes here. She gives her birth name, clear as day, as her birth name, and describes herself as a boy when she was born, and her sister's brother twice not two pages later. During the part where she's talking about the period when she was experimenting with men prior to her

1748:

Second, if she meant to say in her biography that she was George but is now Christine she could easily have said that. But she doesn't. She says stuff like "I was comfortable as 'Christine'" and "Christine Jorgensen was on page one ", but only ever puts "George" into direct quotes except for when

1493:

notable under this name as this is the name she famously chose to use to describe her life prior to transitioning, per her autobiography. And once again, you are skipping the fact that DEADNAME is a BLP rule in its current form and so no part of it applies to a dead person. The section you quoted

768:

Mentioning a birth name somewhere may not be a problem, if and only if it is relevant (and you should show it is relevant), but by bold-facing it in the first senstence you are basically saying, "hey, Christine isn't really your name"; dead-naming. The name you want to be called by in person, the

463:

As a follow up, in almost every single Wiki post, there is always a section that summarizes all aspects/forms of critical reception and controversial topics. This post is no exception. It is really questionable why such a normal post will be entirely removed, while there are millions of post that

2003:

Not to speak for Loki but my issues aren't about privacy but more just what non-biased and professional standards for talking about trans people. Most RS do not discuss non-notable deadnames anymore and I think in this case we should do the same as she clearly preferred to be known as Christine.

272:

So now God assigns an English pronoun to each of us at birth? If this is to be Knowledge (XXG) policy, where exactly do we find this registry of pronouns? This absurd claim is an example of what might be called the "I speak for God" fallacy, whereby people attribute their own opinions -- usually

1435:

There is no question that "born a boy" (or similar) belongs in the article in the early life section, as it would be confusing to omit such crucial information from the article. I would include her birth name as well in the body as relevant information, but that's subject to discussion based on

924:

Georgia guy's point is kind of a false dilemma: we either "accept the version of trans identity wherein it is argued that one's entire pre-transition life should be forcibly erased from collective memory" or "deny the existence of trans people entirely." As I've noted, there are plenty of trans

1903:

Yes, she did publish it in her book, and it had also been published in news stories after she came out. But whether there's reliable sourcing for the information isn't the policy issue, the issue is whether she was ever notable under the previous name. Private information doesn't cease to be a

824:

I understand this as meaning that the article is for everyone; that is, people who understand transgender identities well and people who don't because they take for granted the idea that transgender identities work by arbitrarily wanting to change yourself. Any corrections on what I'm saying??

445:

The post I included directly expresses the influence of Jorgensen's stardom. It is a fact that her rise to fame overshadowed other figures, it is not an opinion about her. Whether I agree with this opinion or not is unimportant. It makes sense to include it because it shows the direct effect

1816:

for the author of an autobiography to refer to themselves in the third person. Most mentions of "Christine" are also in either airquotes or quotations for the same reason: by your argument, she must also not like that name and so we can't call her anything. Seriously, have you ever read an

535:

Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an

508:

Knowledge (XXG) consensus has been reached with the Caitlyn Jenner article (which states her birth name) on not censoring historical information while not dead naming unnecessarily. Jorgensen listed her birth name on the cover of her book, so her position on the matter is publicly known.

1459:

and not here; when that discussion resolves (one way, or the other) then please come back here and let us know how it turned out, and then you can apply it here. What you can't do is change this article first based on a preference that rejects the recommendations of DEADNAME. Thanks,

1528:

am Sharon"). Christine was of the latter mindset. And no, it did not say that, the RfC said there was no change to the current policy that DEADNAME only applies to living persons because it is a BLP privacy issue. Again, the rules you are quoting, as the MOS is currently written,

1209:" which is precisely what Christine did. I'm not sure how misreading the MOS can justify removing how a woman chose to describe herself. The RfC on the MOS talk page makes it very clear that DEADNAME only exists as an exception to NOTCENSORED in BLP privacy cases, not all cases. 107:

women – she appeared to be male, was raised accordingly, but eventually concluded that she was female – which is probably why the editors of the article haven't spelled it out. But perhaps it could be explained a little more, especially given Jorgensen's pioneering status.

1580:

but this is clearly an oversight on your part, or a selective quotation intended to show that the quotation applies to Jorgensen when it very clearly does not. We don't need an Rfc to determine that DEADNAME says what it says. Here is what it does say on this subject:

1298:

Manual of Style, and if your view prevails there, then this article will be changed in the way you desire (and so will every other article in the encyclopedia regarding other trans people in a similar situation). There's just no point in continuing this discussion here.

2004:

GLAAD's media guide lays out what modern outlets go by mostly these days and discusses the bias implicit in including unnecessary deadnames. This conversation is btw overly long to the point of unreadability. I think at this point we are unlikely to reach consensus.

1758:

Based on these considerations, we recommend considering a subsequent RfC that frames the subject very narrowly: Extending for some period the BLP protections for deadnames of people who were never notable under the deadname, and determining what period it should be.

1013:

The article does look much better now, with her birth name -- not because I really needed to know her exact name at birth, but because her whole situation (everyone else thinking she was a boy while she thought she was a girl) until her operation becomes immediately

1881:. I support your claim about "dead people still have some interest in keeping their private information private", but it doesn't apply here, since Jorgensen published the name herself and 450,000 copies were sold, so it is no longer information to be kept private. 1792:

applies in a scenario where it does not according to its own wording, that's not how anything works. Particularly when, as you noted yourself, it is a BLP policy. I can't argue WP:BLP applies to Julius Caesar no matter how many people I can round up to nod their

605:. As for the film, that's how John Hansen's role was credited according to IMDB ("George Jorgensen Jr / Christine Jorgensen") while Trent Lehman was credited as playing "George at 7." This isn't us "deadnaming" her, it's correctly reporting what the film did. ( 563:, and the article complies with it: Jorgensen is referred to as female throughout. Names are a different matter, and as a matter of historical record, stating a deceased person's birth name can be useful information. It certainly isn't "violence" of any kind. - 666:

first name in talking about the biopic isn't necessary (and overly informal in any case), so I changed it to her last name. But the bit of MOS quoted above is not about names, it is about gender (as in the quoted phrase "gender self-designation"). MOS does

2162:

Consider adding a photo to the “Legacy” section. That part looks word-heavy and not very aesthetically appealing. It might benefit from a picture of perhaps Jorgensen’s induction into Chicago’s Legacy Walk, if a publicly available image of that exists.

1711:

too: page 27 in search (numbered as 5) has her describing herself as her sister Dolly's brother twice on the same page. She documents her birth as "Mom gave birth to the Jorgensens' second child, a normal baby boy." You have not read this book at all.

1345:

One person cannot edit war, you were doing the same thing. Moreover, I have yet to see any of you manage to cite a policy-related reason for what you're doing, other than "we've all misread the MOS in exactly the same way somehow." So either address:

2022:

she transitioned. It cannot be said to be a deadname for the same reason: she made it public as opposed to trying to conceal it. Please stop imposing the modern concept of a deadname on someone who died decades before the term even existed.

1751:

Even as a child, I was 'girlish', and I've grown up with what I think are the emotions and desires of a woman. Physically, I'm an underdeveloped male, but isn't it just possible that the organs that classify me as a male are one of nature's

2216: 800:

policy means that you don't get to impose yours onto its articles. (And as a personal note: I find your use of the word "violence" to describe the contents of an encyclopedia article both problematic and offensive, because it trivializes

592:

The "self-designation" part is about their gender, not their name. It says in MOS:GENDER that "The MoS does not specify when and how to present former names, or whether to use the former or present name first:" note that it does not say

2075: 805:

violence, including that experienced by many trans people. It also tells trans people whose birth names have been used against their wishes that they should feel victimized by that, which I disagree with emphatically.)

1443:

The current content about her military career is confusing and needs improvement, as it's not clear whether Jorgensen served as part of the regular army as a male (as is the case), or as part of the women's division

764:

Gender-identity is not limited to gender alone, it encompasses everything, including the name. If it's WP policy to limit identity to gender, then WP policy itself is transphobic, which it (I assume) attempts not to

249:

To Georgia Guy, I have revised the text as it appears several editors disagree. I however disagree with both you and user talk:2.102.13.163 and vote that pronouns used should those the Almighty gives us at birth.

2124: 1927:. It's easy to verify all these titles if we wanted. But we would never include this list of alternate names in any article because it has essentially zero encyclopedic value. The exception is for something like 1837:

after she legally changed her name (particularly those where she was described as a male transvestite) and instances of it being used to needle at her (such as her being referred to as "George-ous" at one point).

769:

name that is tied to your personal identity is also not comparable to an artistic name, or pseudonym. What's done on the pages for Elton John or John Wayne has no, or should have, no bearing on Christine's page.

619:

No, self-designation is not limited to gender, her chosen name is part of her identity and self-designation and by using her birth-name one directly goes against the rule to 'give precedence to self-designation'.

291:

Knowledge (XXG) policy is settled on this: We use the pronouns that the subject of the article has stated that they identify with. In this case, Jorgensen identified as female and thus we refer to her as "she".

2158:

In the last paragraph of the introduction, someone wrote “she gave lectures at colleges at university.” This does not sound right. There might be a word or punctuation missing? Consider rewriting this part.

1431:

Paragraph 3 of DEADNAME makes it clear that a deadname is excluded only in the lead (even for living persons), and not in the main body of the article. (For a deceased person it is not excluded even from the

956:

more problematic than using the "dead name" of someone who also has a dead body and therefore cannot be the subject of "violence," even with the ridiculous redefinition of "violence" that is being used here.

1133:

Notable under that name or not, when she put it on the front cover of her autobiography then there is no reason to suppress it here. This is just preposterous. Was John Wayne famous under his birth dame?

1719:

rather than checking for themselves. In particular, this began with Rab V making the entirely incorrect claim that MOS:DEADNAME is a controlling policy here and the edit was necessary to "comply" with it.

1204:

name, and was quite happy to say so. Thirdly, you also missed the section in DEADNAME where it state that one should "use their current name as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.),

1763:

The argument for extending it particularly in the case of recent deaths by murders or suicide, we found compelling, and it is likely that if a future RfC is focused on this point, it may find consensus.

1715:

the case of living people, as it is a BLP privacy issue. The relevance or lack thereof for dead people is entirely unrelated to DEADNAME, and it cannot be invoked in such cases with its present wording.

1352:

Why MOS:DEADNAME's section "unless they prefer their former name be used for past events" does not apply to a woman who called herself by her birth name prior to her transition in her own autobiography;

1455:

Finally, if you want to make changes to what should or shouldn't be permitted in the body of articles about deceased trans individuals based on DEADNAME, please move that portion of the argument to

1966:, so it has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. I would imagine all the names are just translations of "Citizen Kane," so they're not actually different titles: in cases where a film 1200:

existed. Per her own autobiography, her conception of herself was that she was born as a boy named George and became a woman named Christine when she transitioned: she viewed it simply as her

770: 691: 629: 623: 579: 544: 2018:

This is a highly notable name which was used throughout her life, by her and others, in discussing her story. It cannot be said to be a privacy concern as she published the name herself,

1440:, and appropriate for this article the same as it would be for any article, and could be excluded for those reasons, but not based on what DEADNAME says about it, which is nothing at all. 1679:

It's often possible to find famous people's addresses or embarrassing childhood nicknames too but we don't include those in articles without a good reason, even after death, because

597:

to present formers names, and so the implication is that they should be present. Further, many trans people do not care about "deadnaming" which is a modern concept (for example,

1426:

it is stated in her own autobiography, so clearly Jorgensen was not dissociating herself from that name or her boyhood identity as an identifier of her pre-transition life.

725:

And make no mistake about this: WP fully respects and supports her gender identity. In every instance where her gender is specified or alluded to or categorized, it is

690:

No, again, self-designation includes her name and is not limited to gender. By 'reporting' her birth-name in such a prominent way you effectively deny her her identity.

384: 380: 366: 2132: 1745:. Otherwise there would basically be no such thing as edit-warring, because almost all content disputes on Knowledge (XXG) have some policy backing for both sides. 857:. This has the understood meaning that the article is for everyone, regardless of their point of view. (This holds regardless of who the you in the statement is.) 601:

prefers using her previous name "Robert" when referring to herself in the past), and there is no evidence Christine had problems with the use of her given name

1958:

Your example is irrelevant. She was notable under both names, since she used both names to describe her life in her notable autobiography. The other names of

1414:. Please read DEADNAME again; the part you quoted about "does not belong anywhere" is an accurate quote, but does not apply to Jorgensen for several reasons: 1683:

and because dead people still have some interest in keeping their private information private: weaker interest than living people, of course, but still some.

1423:

concerns only the body not the lead, and a mention in the body is not prohibited by DEADNAME (even for living persons) if otherwise beneficial to the article

350: 1452:—not the case) which is important information with respect to transgender individuals and the military, and should not be left to the reader to guess about. 2224: 2083: 1456: 910:. Applying the censorship that User:2001 demands would cause the article to fail the latter. Suppressing or obscuring information is counter-productive. - 822:

You are apparently reading the article from a place of familiarity with trans identity, and already understand that, but this article isn't just for you.

449:

Furthermore, the fact that she is the subject of a scholarly work actually and objectively warrants attention, whatever the opinion being expressed it.

1733:

So, first of all, consensus always matters, even if you think it's against policy, because you are not the only arbiter of policy. The exceptions (like

1028:

Her birth name belongs in the article, just as she decided it belonged in her autobiography. Censorship of a fact that is in the public record is bad.

1821:

use their name in the third person frequently, in any context? And I don't know what you think Dr. Benjamin has to do with how she self-identified.

1923:, which is unambiguously about a movie, not a person, living or otherwise. Citizen Kane has been released in many countries, and as a result has 1606:), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc), even in quotations, 1674:

Even though she does include that name in her autobiography, she makes it clear she did not like being called by that name in said autobiography

2187: 1841:

If DEADNAME is actually taken to apply, her tendency to refer to her past self as male and her casual use of her birthname would mean the "

1077:

So Knowledge (XXG)'s gone Full Orwell now? And deleting historical information to protect the "privacy" of the dead? A sad day for Facts. -

1141: 671:

say that a person's birth name should be suppressed because they changed it. We use their chosen name to write about them, but we still

1931:

where it was originally released in another language, where we include only the original title (i.e. the title it was notable under).

219: 59: 362:

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

257: 181: 774: 695: 633: 583: 548: 344: 127:

do this easily. At least I was confused the first time I read the introduction. So I think it should be spelled out/explained.--

622:

By deadnaming one denies her her identity, which is an act of violence (regardless of what your manuals may or may not state).

1498:

transgender or non-binary person..." and you can't just edit that part out and act like only the rest of the sentence exists.

972:

story. And "protecting" a dead person from the imagined "violence" of their birth name being stated, is metaphysical hooey. -

334: 1540:," which is what Christine did in her autobiography, where she described herself in the past as a boy and by her birthname. 2166:

Alternatively, or perhaps additionally, the article might benefit from a relevant photo in the “Popular culture” section.

1919:

Let me give you an analogy that removes all the BLP stuff, because I think that is confusing the issue. We have a page on

1621:

Jorgensen is dead; there is no question whatever that the section you quoted from DEADNAME does not apply to this article.

351:

http://lgbtq.yale.edu/events/susan-stryker-christine-cutting-room-christine-jorgensens-transsexual-celebrity-and-cinematic

1063:

which is clear deadnames do not belong anywhere in the article when the subject was never notable while using that name.

796:

expunge it from the historical record. That may be your point of view, but it is not the only one, and Knowledge (XXG)'s

446:

Jorgensen had. Both "good" and "bad" opinions need to be documented, whatever our personal feelings about it could be.

427: 1741:) where one actually can unilaterally remove a violation of the policy against consensus are stated very explicitly on 528: 524: 155: 100: 1905: 1680: 1091:

I'm fairly certain extending privacy guidelines that already existed to include trans people is not a 1984 scenario.

906:: not just those for whom it's obvious that a trans woman was probably named and raised as if she was male, but also 888:

when there are 2 points of view, each of which is equally valid, not when one is educated and the other is ignorant.

643:

p. 4). "Deadnaming" is a modern concept and applying it to someone who clearly didn't care is historical revisionism.

602: 38: 1673: 1475:

adding the name adds much to the article, is contentious and is part of a biased way to talk about trans people.

1168: 383:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2183: 2148: 47: 17: 2169:

In the first sentence of the “Popular culture” section, consider switching the first word “During” to “In.”

1172: 1145: 174:

until operation then female after. My vote is for the 3rd way however I will respect what the majority say.

2236: 1420: 418: 326: 223: 2175: 1913: 1788:

often, in life, called by the hyphenated title "George-Christine"). You cannot decide by consensus that an

1611: 1599: 1137: 540: 253: 215: 177: 2128: 1928: 1761:

Until this has been done, the default is that the situation needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

1171:

with that consensus for any number of reasons, and that's fine, but until and unless you get consensus at

742: 2095: 2028: 1994: 1936: 1850: 1778: 1724: 1692: 1545: 1503: 1372: 1336: 1318: 1267: 1232: 1214: 1110: 1082: 1050: 977: 962: 934: 915: 902:

Thank you; now I understand that you mistook my point. I wasn't talking about NPOV; I was arguing about

893: 878: 862: 844: 830: 811: 751: 709: 681: 651: 610: 568: 514: 493: 402:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

390: 297: 261: 239: 202: 185: 163: 113: 873:

I understood the meaning of your words; I still don't see the point you're trying to imply with them. -

325:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2024: 1990: 1873:

you won't self-revert for "basically the reason Rab V outlines", then you've got no argument, because

1846: 1720: 1541: 1499: 1368: 1314: 1263: 1210: 958: 930: 705: 647: 606: 103:. Her personal history and her reasons for changing her name and having surgery are fairly typical of 1033: 1029: 1738: 907: 2179: 2144: 2136: 1445: 1224: 741:

was originally known to friends and family as "Reginald Kenneth Dwight", and where we explain that

318: 2232: 2207:

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between

2115:

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between

2066:

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between

1886: 1845:" section becomes relevant. She did, in fact, use her birthname to describe herself in the past. 1661: 1630: 1532:

apply to living individuals and are completely irrelevant in this case. And as I have said, even

1465: 1303: 1019: 132: 85: 1742: 465: 450: 387:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

628:

As for the movie, IMDB deadnaming her is not a good excuse for Knowledge (XXG) to do the same.

442:

My post got deleted for the purported reason it was not an encyclopedic information about her.

403: 345:

http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-history-hptjorg%2C0%2C5016969.story?page=1

797: 2091: 1970:

have multiple titles that differ drastically, they are generally identified in the lede (eg

1932: 1865: 1774: 1688: 1397: 1393: 1332: 1228: 1106: 1078: 1046: 973: 911: 889: 874: 858: 840: 826: 807: 747: 677: 564: 510: 489: 293: 235: 198: 159: 109: 2240: 2191: 2152: 2099: 2032: 2013: 1998: 1940: 1890: 1854: 1782: 1734: 1728: 1696: 1634: 1607: 1549: 1522: 1507: 1484: 1469: 1437: 1376: 1340: 1331:

is edit-warring. You can't just ignore the talk page and revert to your preferred version.

1322: 1307: 1271: 1236: 1218: 1190: 1160: 1149: 1128: 1114: 1100: 1086: 1072: 1054: 1037: 1023: 981: 966: 938: 919: 897: 882: 866: 848: 834: 815: 778: 755: 713: 699: 685: 655: 637: 614: 587: 572: 552: 518: 497: 473: 458: 432: 410: 301: 282: 265: 243: 227: 206: 189: 167: 136: 117: 89: 2009: 1518: 1480: 1124: 1096: 1068: 469: 454: 335:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090220083517/http://www.christinereveals.com/background.html

278: 1950:

protected (there is a distinct difference between someone choosing to reveal information

1536:

we act as if MOS:DEADNAME applies in this instance, you are still violating the section "

903: 1924: 1513:

case by case basis by editors. In this case, I don't think the name should be included.

369:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 598: 409:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

376: 2220: 2079: 1882: 1666: 1626: 1461: 1299: 1176: 1015: 128: 81: 1920: 1909: 1769: 1701:

Consensus doesn't matter. A policy that says over and over that it only applies to

1358:

What the hell right you think you have to delete how a trans woman self-identified.

1355:

Why you believe a name she famously said she previously had is not notable, and/or;

1156: 1060: 719: 1410:, I agree with your revert at the article while talk is ongoing, however not with 1404:, the body of the article already contained it and it isn't necessary in the lead. 338: 1163:. It represents the consensus of many editors after much discussion. That is the 2203: 2111: 2062: 1589: 104: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1798:

Extending for some period the BLP protections for deadnames of people who were

1119:

Instead of personal attacks, let's use this talk page in more productive ways.

480:

that we should be talking about other people instead, which is pretty much the

2005: 1603: 1593: 1560: 1514: 1476: 1407: 1120: 1092: 1064: 738: 734: 375:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 274: 527:

is quite clear on the matter, here's the start of the relevant section under

356: 1972: 1175:

to change the guideline, her deadname will not be included in the article.

737:

was given the name "Marion Robert Morrison" at birth, where we state that

2172:

More broadly, consider rereading for grammatical and structural errors.

1898:

People I respect on transgender issues ... are going all sideways on this

1906:

Knowledge (XXG) is still not an indiscriminate collection of information

1955:

it as a "deadname" in the modern sense, which one does not circulate.

1802:

notable under the deadname, and determining what period it should be

646:

You should note it says "give precedence," not "give exclusivity."

1449: 1349:

Why a policy related to BLP issues applies to someone who is dead;

1327:

Also: regardless of whether you think we know what DEADNAME says,

1681:

Knowledge (XXG) isn't an indiscriminate collection of information

1614:

separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.

1489:

It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what policy is. She

1257:

As noted, the issue here is you're imagining that Christine ever

722:". The fact that it's specifically about gender is unmistakable. 1044:

It’s in the early life section, the only place it needs to be.

718:

The above-quoted MOS guideline is directly under the heading "

25: 1672:

Local consensus here for a while has been "no we shouldn't".

1254:

name, and used that name to describe her life pre-transition.

1059:

Removed it to comply with the current Knowledge (XXG) policy

75:

Making clear in introduction what sex she had surgery from/to

1843:

unless they prefer their former name be used for past events

1538:

unless they prefer their former name be used for past events

1207:

unless they prefer their former name be used for past events

1610:

reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as

1436:

normal article policy and guidelines of what is relevant,

329:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1825:

entirely at odds with the modern trans narrative, but it

929:

just two points of view here, and there very rarely are.

676:

name belongs in the article, as a point of information. -

1896:

reasons we've stated in detail above. (Maybe if several

1195:

Firstly, MOS:DEADNAME is about using the birth names of

1900:

you should reconsider if it's not you that's sideways.)

1363:

or it doesn't matter how many of you there are, you're

1328: 733:. In the same place in the article where we state that 322: 1985:

defeats your point, since the Japanese title is there

1167:

her deadname here. There will always be editors who

761:

it in boldface in the first sentence of the article.

2198:

Wiki Education assignment: The History of Sexuality

379:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 234:Some registered user please watch this discussion. 1313:I'm not really sure who you're replying to there. 1105:I have no doubt that you believe it's goodthink. - 2057:Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexualities 1987:because English RS use both titles to refer to it 1262:Steve." Both names are notable in that scenario. 1573:DEADNAME applies beyond the lead FYI, it says... 212:Agree with the first user and not Georgia Guy. 2106:Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality 1584: 839:I don't see what point you're trying to make. - 339:http://www.christinereveals.com/background.html 1981:). Even your own mention of the two titles of 1877:is not based on any policy or guideline, as I 1457:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Biography 365:This message was posted before February 2018. 1571: 8: 603:given it's on the cover of her autobiography 1756:Third, here's a direct quote from the RfC: 783:Her birth name is relevant in part because 559:That section is talking about the person's 2173: 1135: 538: 357:http://www.glbtq.com/arts/jorgensen_c.html 317:I have just modified 4 external links on 1945:Again, the RfC's conclusion was to make 1829:how such things were framed at the time. 1796:Specifically, if you read it properly, " 95:We refer to Jorgensen as "she" because 1908:and this is one of the reasons behind 1897: 1757: 1750: 1164: 908:those who need those facts spelled out 704:So say you, but MOS:GENDER disagrees. 150:pronoun should be one given at birth. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1912:. It's not just a BLP policy, it's a 1768:And finally, you're quite right that 1412:your interpretation of DEADNAME above 7: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1565: 771:2001:983:58DF:1:98B0:91A1:730F:C488 692:2001:983:58DF:1:19C4:FE06:8CF3:E232 630:2001:983:58DF:1:19C4:FE06:8CF3:E232 624:2001:983:58DF:1:19C4:FE06:8CF3:E232 580:2001:983:58DF:1:19C4:FE06:8CF3:E232 545:2001:983:58DF:1:75FA:FF24:6307:FDE3 2212: 2208: 2120: 2116: 2071: 2067: 1962:are not excluded because they are 1411: 1401: 24: 1925:tons of alternate language titles 855:..this article isn't just for you 321:. Please take a moment to review 2215:. Further details are available 2202: 2123:. Further details are available 2110: 2074:. Further details are available 2061: 29: 1989:. Guess how that applies here? 1242:an exception to WP:NOTCENSORED 1161:Knowledge (XXG) Manual of Style 504:Dead naming and Manual of Style 355:Corrected formatting/usage for 349:Corrected formatting/usage for 343:Corrected formatting/usage for 156:Knowledge (XXG):Gender identity 2033:13:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC) 2014:19:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 1999:19:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 1941:18:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 1891:13:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 1855:07:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 1783:06:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 1729:05:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 1697:04:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 1635:12:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 1550:04:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 1523:02:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 1508:02:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 1485:02:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 1470:00:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC) 1377:22:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC) 1341:14:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC) 1323:00:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC) 1308:00:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC) 1272:00:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC) 1237:23:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC) 1219:06:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC) 1: 2231:— Assignment last updated by 2192:23:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC) 2153:23:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC) 2143:— Assignment last updated by 2100:21:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 2090:— Assignment last updated by 1808:notable under her birth name. 578:preferred name and pronouns. 2241:04:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 1225:an RfC about this very issue 1129:18:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC) 1115:18:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC) 1101:17:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC) 1087:15:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC) 1073:10:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC) 1024:15:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC) 519:17:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC) 1625:policy- compliant. Thanks, 1055:09:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 1038:09:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 982:13:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC) 967:05:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC) 939:19:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC) 920:14:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC) 898:13:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC) 883:13:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC) 867:01:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC) 849:23:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC) 835:17:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC) 816:13:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC) 779:09:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC) 756:02:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC) 714:20:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC) 700:20:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC) 686:20:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC) 656:20:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC) 638:20:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC) 615:20:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC) 588:19:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC) 573:15:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC) 553:09:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC) 266:23:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 244:19:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 228:19:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 207:16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 190:16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 168:15:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 2257: 1244:under BLP privacy policies 498:01:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 474:01:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 459:00:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 438:Mysticism and white fandom 433:14:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC) 396:(last update: 5 June 2024) 314:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1817:autobiography where some 1191:23:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC) 1150:23:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC) 137:18:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC) 118:13:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC) 90:12:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC) 18:Talk:Christine Jorgensen 1602:under a former name (a 310:External links modified 302:13:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC) 283:05:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC) 1983:Grave of the Fireflies 1929:Grave of the Fireflies 1616: 1575: 743:Jackie Kennedy Onassis 2219:. Student editor(s): 2127:. Student editor(s): 2078:. Student editor(s): 484:of being information 42:of past discussions. 1250:a deadname, just an 785:she made it relevant 377:regular verification 2135:). Peer reviewers: 1875:Rab V's claim above 1223:There was recently 367:After February 2018 319:Christine Jorgensen 2217:on the course page 2125:on the course page 2076:on the course page 1612:a privacy interest 1367:violating policy. 1165:reason to suppress 1155:It's a guideline ( 904:serving the reader 421:InternetArchiveBot 372:InternetArchiveBot 2194: 2178:comment added by 2129:Gabriellacarriere 1665: 1152: 1140:comment added by 791:"Christine" as a 555: 543:comment added by 397: 256:comment added by 218:comment added by 180:comment added by 72: 71: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2248: 2243: 2225:article contribs 2214: 2210: 2206: 2155: 2133:article contribs 2122: 2121:22 December 2023 2118: 2117:7 September 2023 2114: 2102: 2084:article contribs 2073: 2072:15 December 2022 2069: 2065: 1979:The Road Warrior 1869: 1765:(Emphasis mine.) 1659: 1568:, you said that 1564: 1398:User:Gleeanon409 1188: 1185: 1182: 1179: 431: 422: 395: 394: 373: 268: 230: 192: 145:Correct pronouns 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2256: 2255: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2230: 2213:8 December 2023 2200: 2142: 2108: 2089: 2059: 1916:policy as well. 1863: 1558: 1417:she is deceased 1186: 1183: 1180: 1177: 720:Gender identity 525:Manual of Style 506: 440: 425: 420: 388: 381:have permission 371: 327:this simple FaQ 312: 251: 213: 175: 147: 77: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2254: 2252: 2209:28 August 2023 2199: 2196: 2180:James Goodyear 2145:James Goodyear 2137:James Goodyear 2107: 2104: 2068:25 August 2022 2058: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 1956: 1917: 1901: 1879:already showed 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1838: 1830: 1822: 1809: 1794: 1766: 1754: 1746: 1716: 1712: 1684: 1677: 1670: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1622: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1453: 1441: 1433: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1424: 1418: 1405: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1356: 1353: 1350: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1255: 1107:Jason A. Quest 1079:Jason A. Quest 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 974:Jason A. Quest 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 912:Jason A. Quest 875:Jason A. Quest 853:You're saying 841:Jason A. Quest 820:You're saying 808:Jason A. Quest 766: 762: 748:Jason A. Quest 723: 678:Jason A. Quest 660: 659: 658: 644: 626: 620: 595:whether or not 565:Jason A. Quest 505: 502: 501: 500: 490:Jason A. Quest 439: 436: 415: 414: 407: 360: 359: 353: 347: 341: 333:Added archive 311: 308: 307: 306: 305: 304: 294:Jason A. Quest 286: 285: 247: 246: 210: 209: 171: 170: 146: 143: 142: 141: 140: 139: 121: 120: 110:Jason A. Quest 76: 73: 70: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2253: 2244: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2233:Snchristensen 2228: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2205: 2197: 2195: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2170: 2167: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2140: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2113: 2105: 2103: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2087: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2064: 2056: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2021: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1974: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1948: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1915: 1914:WP:NOTABILITY 1911: 1907: 1902: 1899: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1867: 1862: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1828: 1823: 1820: 1815: 1810: 1807: 1803: 1801: 1795: 1791: 1790:entire policy 1786: 1785: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1771: 1767: 1764: 1762: 1755: 1753: 1747: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1704: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1685: 1682: 1678: 1675: 1671: 1668: 1663: 1662:edit conflict 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1623: 1620: 1615: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1595: 1591: 1583: 1582: 1579: 1574: 1570: 1569: 1567: 1562: 1557: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1494:begins "If a 1492: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1458: 1454: 1451: 1447: 1442: 1439: 1434: 1430: 1425: 1422: 1419: 1416: 1415: 1413: 1409: 1406: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1357: 1354: 1351: 1348: 1347: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1260: 1256: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1203: 1198: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1189: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1153: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1142:98.227.94.127 1139: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1026: 1025: 1021: 1017: 983: 979: 975: 970: 969: 968: 964: 960: 955: 950: 940: 936: 932: 928: 923: 922: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 900: 899: 895: 891: 886: 885: 884: 880: 876: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 864: 860: 856: 852: 851: 850: 846: 842: 838: 837: 836: 832: 828: 823: 819: 818: 817: 813: 809: 804: 799: 794: 793:fait accompli 790: 786: 782: 781: 780: 776: 772: 767: 763: 759: 758: 757: 753: 749: 744: 740: 736: 732: 728: 724: 721: 717: 716: 715: 711: 707: 703: 702: 701: 697: 693: 689: 688: 687: 683: 679: 674: 670: 665: 661: 657: 653: 649: 645: 641: 640: 639: 635: 631: 627: 625: 621: 618: 617: 616: 612: 608: 604: 600: 596: 591: 590: 589: 585: 581: 576: 575: 574: 570: 566: 562: 558: 557: 556: 554: 550: 546: 542: 537: 532: 530: 526: 521: 520: 516: 512: 503: 499: 495: 491: 487: 483: 478: 477: 476: 475: 471: 467: 461: 460: 456: 452: 447: 443: 437: 435: 434: 429: 424: 423: 412: 408: 405: 401: 400: 399: 392: 386: 382: 378: 374: 368: 363: 358: 354: 352: 348: 346: 342: 340: 336: 332: 331: 330: 328: 324: 320: 315: 309: 303: 299: 295: 290: 289: 288: 287: 284: 280: 276: 271: 270: 269: 267: 263: 259: 255: 245: 241: 237: 233: 232: 231: 229: 225: 221: 217: 208: 204: 200: 195: 194: 193: 191: 187: 183: 179: 169: 165: 161: 157: 153: 152: 151: 144: 138: 134: 130: 125: 124: 123: 122: 119: 115: 111: 106: 102: 98: 94: 93: 92: 91: 87: 83: 74: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2229: 2201: 2174:— Preceding 2171: 2168: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2141: 2109: 2088: 2060: 2019: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1960:Citizen Kane 1959: 1951: 1946: 1921:Citizen Kane 1910:MOS:DEADNAME 1842: 1833: 1826: 1818: 1813: 1805: 1799: 1797: 1789: 1770:MOS:DEADNAME 1760: 1707: 1702: 1587: 1585: 1572: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1495: 1490: 1400:pointed out 1364: 1296: 1258: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1206: 1201: 1196: 1157:MOS:DEADNAME 1136:— Preceding 1061:MOS:DEADNAME 1043: 1027: 1012: 953: 926: 854: 821: 802: 792: 788: 784: 746:"violent". - 730: 726: 672: 668: 663: 662:That use of 594: 560: 539:— Preceding 534: 533: 522: 507: 485: 481: 462: 448: 444: 441: 419: 416: 391:source check 370: 364: 361: 316: 313: 252:— Preceding 248: 220:2.102.13.163 214:— Preceding 211: 176:— Preceding 172: 154:Please read 148: 99:did; that's 96: 78: 65: 43: 37: 2092:LivMourning 2025:Bones Jones 1991:Bones Jones 1866:LokiTheLiar 1847:Bones Jones 1721:Bones Jones 1590:transgender 1542:Bones Jones 1500:Bones Jones 1421:your revert 1394:LokiTheLiar 1369:Bones Jones 1315:Bones Jones 1264:Bones Jones 1211:Bones Jones 1047:Gleeanon409 959:Bones Jones 931:Bones Jones 890:Georgia guy 859:Georgia guy 827:Georgia guy 706:Bones Jones 648:Bones Jones 607:Bones Jones 511:Cactusframe 258:2.102.8.153 236:Georgia guy 199:Georgia guy 182:92.7.240.51 160:Georgia guy 105:transgender 36:This is an 1952:themselves 1814:not normal 1739:WP:COPYVIO 1594:non-binary 1030:Grassynoel 739:Elton John 735:John Wayne 599:this woman 428:Report bug 1977:US title 1973:Mad Max 2 1947:no change 1752:mistakes? 1173:WT:MOSBIO 1159:) in the 731:one place 486:about her 411:this tool 404:this tool 101:WP policy 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2221:Hails.ak 2188:contribs 2176:unsigned 2080:Cccc2026 1883:Mathglot 1871:You said 1743:WP:3RRNO 1667:Mathglot 1627:Mathglot 1604:deadname 1598:was not 1462:Mathglot 1300:Mathglot 1169:disagree 1138:unsigned 1016:Ornilnas 541:unsigned 536:article. 529:Identity 482:opposite 417:Cheers.— 254:unsigned 216:unsigned 178:unsigned 129:Ornilnas 82:Ornilnas 1964:private 1834:clearly 1608:even if 1600:notable 1588:living 1259:stopped 323:my edit 39:archive 1793:heads. 1735:WP:BLP 1703:living 1596:person 1496:living 1438:WP:DUE 1432:lead.) 1248:having 1197:living 1014:clear. 954:vastly 803:actual 727:female 673:report 664:either 561:gender 2020:after 2006:Rab V 1806:never 1800:never 1708:after 1586:If a 1566:Above 1561:Rab V 1515:Rab V 1477:Rab V 1450:WAVES 1408:Rab V 1402:above 1121:Rab V 1093:Rab V 1065:Rab V 466:Ktf87 451:Ktf87 275:Jibal 16:< 2237:talk 2211:and 2184:talk 2149:talk 2119:and 2096:talk 2070:and 2029:talk 2010:talk 1995:talk 1968:does 1937:talk 1933:Loki 1887:talk 1851:talk 1832:She 1779:talk 1775:Loki 1737:and 1725:talk 1693:talk 1689:Loki 1631:talk 1546:talk 1530:only 1519:talk 1504:talk 1481:talk 1466:talk 1446:WACs 1373:talk 1337:talk 1333:Loki 1329:this 1319:talk 1304:talk 1268:talk 1233:talk 1229:Loki 1215:talk 1146:talk 1125:talk 1111:talk 1097:talk 1083:talk 1069:talk 1051:talk 1034:talk 1020:talk 978:talk 963:talk 935:talk 916:talk 894:talk 879:talk 863:talk 845:talk 831:talk 812:talk 798:NPOV 789:just 775:talk 752:talk 710:talk 696:talk 682:talk 652:talk 634:talk 611:talk 584:talk 569:talk 549:talk 523:The 515:talk 494:talk 470:talk 455:talk 298:talk 279:talk 262:talk 240:talk 224:talk 203:talk 186:talk 164:talk 133:talk 114:talk 86:talk 2227:). 2086:). 1819:did 1592:or 1448:or 1365:all 1252:old 1202:old 927:not 765:be. 669:not 488:. - 385:RfC 337:to 97:she 2239:) 2190:) 2186:• 2151:) 2139:. 2098:) 2031:) 2012:) 1997:) 1975:'s 1939:) 1889:) 1853:) 1827:is 1781:) 1727:) 1695:) 1633:) 1548:) 1534:if 1521:) 1506:) 1491:is 1483:) 1468:) 1375:) 1339:) 1321:) 1306:) 1270:) 1235:) 1217:) 1187:os 1184:Sr 1181:ey 1178:Sr 1148:) 1127:) 1113:) 1099:) 1085:) 1071:) 1053:) 1036:) 1022:) 980:) 965:) 937:) 918:) 896:) 881:) 865:) 847:) 833:) 814:) 777:) 754:) 712:) 698:) 684:) 654:) 636:) 613:) 586:) 571:) 551:) 531:: 517:) 496:) 472:) 457:) 398:. 393:}} 389:{{ 300:) 281:) 264:) 242:) 226:) 205:) 188:) 166:) 158:. 135:) 116:) 88:) 2235:( 2223:( 2182:( 2147:( 2131:( 2094:( 2082:( 2027:( 2008:( 1993:( 1935:( 1885:( 1868:: 1864:@ 1849:( 1777:( 1723:( 1691:( 1664:) 1660:( 1629:( 1563:: 1559:@ 1544:( 1517:( 1502:( 1479:( 1464:( 1444:( 1371:( 1335:( 1317:( 1302:( 1266:( 1231:( 1213:( 1144:( 1123:( 1109:( 1095:( 1081:( 1067:( 1049:( 1032:( 1018:( 976:( 961:( 933:( 914:( 892:( 877:( 861:( 843:( 829:( 810:( 806:- 773:( 750:( 708:( 694:( 680:( 650:( 632:( 609:( 582:( 567:( 547:( 513:( 492:( 468:( 453:( 430:) 426:( 413:. 406:. 296:( 292:- 277:( 260:( 238:( 222:( 201:( 184:( 162:( 131:( 112:( 108:- 84:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index