This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Drag Race, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofDrag Race (franchise) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Drag RaceWikipedia:WikiProject Drag RaceTemplate:WikiProject Drag RaceDrag Race
This article is of interest toWikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of allLGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit theproject page or contribute to thediscussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles abouttelevision programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you canjoin the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to thestyle guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this and other articles that may face the same discussion not include the former legal name of a contestant/s who presented and competed as male at the time of the competition and has since transitioned to female and legally changed their name to reflect their transition. Please see the discussion above for some more information.Brocicle (talk)01:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oh, how surprising, you wrote this in such a way as to appear reasonable while still pushing your transphobic agenda.At no point has anyone intelligent suggested removing her former name entirely. It is reasonable to put, as a footnoted comment, that she was previously known as Jason. What isnot acceptable and people have literally been telling you this for months is forcing the use of a trans woman's deadname as though it were a) her legal name, and b) relevant, and c) not transphobic as all hell.24.138.76.242 (talk)13:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Use the current name of allDrag Race contestants: AsBearcat points out above, the legal names of contestants are very rarely mentioned on the show, so this isn't a matter of omitting information that is important to understanding the show. This is a matter of allowing people to find out more information about the contestants, and for that we need two names: their drag name; and their current name. I should clarify that current name should be what the person wishes to be called, not their legal name, for the same reason that we refer toMuhammad Ali rather than Cassius Clay (a legal namehe never changed)—it's both common courtesy and correct to use the name they go by. This is particularly important in the case of transgender contestants, who generally have very strong objections to using their wrong-gendered name. For those who aren't particularly familiar with trans issues, the analogy of gay people is relevant here: we wouldn't call a gay person "formerly straight" when talking about their life before coming out, because they have always been gay; here, we shouldn't be using a male name to describe a person who has always been female, or vice versa. Finally, the most relevant policy isMOS:GENDERID: "Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis." Well, contextually it makes sense to describe a person, in table columns where it says "Name", by... their name. Not some former legal name.—Bilorv(c)(talk)17:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in most cases, a trans person's current, preferred name should take precedence over any former names. However, inDrag Race contestant tables, we deal with the very specific case of names presentedin conjunction with ages. The26-year-old performer known as Sonique was a woman, butat that age, her name was Jason. This means that a table row indicating the performer was both 26 years old and also named Kylie presents a logical contradiction; those two things were not true concurrently. I am personally a fan of the way this is handled atRuPaul's Drag Race (season 6)#Contestants, where Gia's legal name at age 23 is immediately followed by a footnote indicating that her current name is different. I think this is what we should do with Kylie's name here.Armadillopteryxtalk22:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At present I decline to comment on other entries. In this entry, where the person's name is mentioned only once, it seems appropriate for a variety of reasons to use the person's most-recent name--including basic decency reasons and because it is the identifier most helpful to readers in finding that person in other contexts. As for the issue with the chart, it's easily resolved by revising the preceding note to indicate it's just the ages that listed as they were at the time of competition. I have done that for now in the interests of making sure readers are not misled pending the outcome of this RfC, but of course it should be adjusted depending on that outcome.Innisfree987 (talk)21:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Use name at time of contest with an end note that acknowledges her name change to reflect her transition since being on the show:This is how the information was presented prior to this discussion and RfC being opened and how the information is presented currently for other transgender contestants who came out either during or after the show, except for three contestants due to no reliable sources found/added for their now preferred/legal names andPeppermint.
In regard toMOS:GENDERID it is clear that it can be interpreted differently as it itself is not ironclad in wording and is very broad and open to interpretation (different discussion for a different day). In the sectionreferring to the person in other articles it states to use context to determine which name should be presented. The context is during the filming in 2009, Sonique presented and competed as male and under her previous name, Jason Edwards. And this is a television season article and not an article about Sonique only. It should be noted that Sonique did not present or live as female in Atlanta where it is listed she is fromduring the competition but did so once moving to Los Angelesafter the competition as stated in this article[1]
There is aprevious discussion at Village Pump in relation to how Caitlyn Jenner's previous Olympic wins should be presented since her transition. While it is noted by the closing editor that the discussion doesnot set precedent, they make some points which could be considered relevant to this RfC and overall discussion. For example, the concept of preserving historical gender, Sonique (at the time in 2009 for filming) did need to identify and present as male in order to compete on the show (confirmed by multiple contestants of the earlier seasons), which showed some form of male identification originally before coming out publicly as a transgender woman during the reunion. Also, with Sonique herself confirming she lived as a male during the time this could further support the historical gender concept if the closing editor believes it to be relevant.Brocicle (talk)15:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shockingly, you are--yet again--babbling on without any idea what you're talking about. RuPaul, who is the ultimate arbiter of who does and does not get on the show, has stated publicly more than once that theonly thing they screen for in applicants is (a series of qualities forming an acronym I'd rather not repeat). Plus, 'historical gender' is just... for fuck's sake, you clearly know NOT A SINGLE THING AT ALL ABOUT BEING TRANS (or indeed any kind of queer) so how about HERE IS A SHOCKING IDEA, how about you shut your smug straight cis mouth and LISTEN TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW MORE THAN YOU DO. For chrissake.24.138.76.242 (talk)22:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pleaseremain civil in your discussion and behaviour with and towards other editors. And do not assume how someone else personally identifies because of differing opinions. Thank you.Brocicle (talk)15:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, when you stop being transphobic. I'm not making assumptions, I'm looking at whatyou have said onyour user page. So fine, straight up: are you trans? (we know the answer). Are you queer? (likewise). YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.24.138.76.242 (talk)14:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, this is a well-justified point and I'd support the reverse (current name with former name as a note) as a compromise. But I do have a couple of comments to make. The concept of "historical gender" is a nonsense one, not respected in any academic field—particularly not in medical science. As far as I can ascertain, it's a term coined by a Wikipedia editor; I deconstructed this notion above with the analogy of calling a gay person "formerly straight" (though I've now fixed a rather crucial word in my writing). It's a shame no-one in that discussion pointed this out but there you go. I'll add that the current state of affairs is not an argument for or against any particular outcome (take a look atWP:IAPD).—Bilorv(c)(talk)16:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, perhaps historical gender isn't the correct term for what I'm trying to say. I dont know how to describe what I mean in clear terms without misinterpretation currently but I will add it in if I think of a way between now and the closing of the RfC if I can.Brocicle (talk)17:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
what youmean is deadnaming someone. what youmean is forcing recognition of an identity that has been discarded. what youmean is that you know jack and shit about trans issues, so sit down and shut up and listen to people who know what they're talking about.24.138.76.242 (talk)15:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Newslinger: Can you explain how you reached that conclusion for the above conversation? At best it appears to be a no consensus, despite the comments made by our vociferous anonymous friend. Thanks.Nihlus01:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not Newslinger and of course consensus is not about voting but by my reading, four participants argued in favour of using current names to one participant arguing in favour of the historical names (with one participant arguing for RfC closure).—Bilorv(c)(talk)01:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All editors who expressed an opinion approved of using the contestants' current preferred names in the article, but editors were split on whether the contestants' former names should be mentioned.The only guideline that relates to this RfC isWikipedia:Manual of Style § Gender identity (MOS:GENDERID), which recommends that editors"Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources" and is in line with the majority opinion here. Altogether, it's clear that the current preferred names should be used in the article.
My closing summary should have been more clear on whether it's appropriate to mention the contestants' former names (even if only in a footnote). I didn't comment on this, even though it's the question explicitly asked in the RfC statement, because the RfC statement doesn't fully explain the dispute at"Sonique/Deadname" ("the discussion above"). Editors are most interested in whether the current preferred names or the former names should be used as the primary names in the article, and asking whether the article should"not include the former legal name" only reveals half of the dispute. You're right in that there's no consensus on whether it's appropriate to mention the contestants' former names in the article, and I've amended the closing summary to include this. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Newslinger, 3v2 is not a consensus for either point. Period. So please revert your close or I will open a new discussion. The line you speak about inMOS:GENDERID is for theMain biographical article on a person whose gender might be questioned. WhenReferring to the person in other articles it should be a case-by-case basis. It is clear that you misquoted and misapplied that policy in order to form a consensus that is not there.Nihlus10:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. I've changed the closure to "no consensus" and struck the statements that are invalid. A new discussion might be warranted.— Newslingertalk10:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I personally am not sure that an RfC to apply across the board is appropriate. This was partly because of the very limited notice of Kylie on this page and in the encyclopedia. Circumstances might merit a different decision for other contestants or in other seasons.Innisfree987 (talk)19:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there is. Some transgender people themselves refer to their previous name when discussing previous events. If they feel ok with it, I don’t think the encyclopedia needs to exclude it, only to make sure there’s not undue weight put on it (e.g. if it’s mentioned once in a long entry about their life.) That’s not applicable here though, among other reasons because Kylie is only briefly mentioned so adding her previous name would necessarily put undue weight on her transition.Innisfree987 (talk)18:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that is the case. If you think there are going to be different ways in how we handle a general concept, then please explain. Otherwise, I will move forward with the RfC soon when I have the time.Nihlus19:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. For instance, if it were to be the case that a contestant's transition had been a significant element of a particular season (maybe there is such a case already, I've only seem some of the show), and that were reflected by secondary sources covering the show, and also sources indicated the subject didn't object to use of their former name (in the spirit though not letter ofWP:BLPPRIVACY)--then I think a short mention, perhaps a footnote, could be appropriate within a much larger section that otherwise used the person's most recent self-designation. Kylie's mention in this entry is very far from that situation though, and I can imagine any number of cases in between that would mean it's hard to formulate a single "RuPaul's Drag Race" rule, other than reiterating our existing policies deciding according to GENDERID (which as you note advises taking these matters on a case-by-case basis), DUEWEIGHT, and so forth. Put differently: I thinkWP:NOTBURO is good counsel here.Innisfree987 (talk)19:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing to keep in mind. An overarching BLP principle is that we must err on the side of avoiding harming living individuals. There's no question that at least some transgender people experience harm from use of their prior name. If avoiding that harm that means there's some inconsistency in WP descriptions of episodes of a television show, well, we really need to keep our priorities straight.Innisfree987 (talk)20:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The harm comes from including potentially false or libelous information or gossip that may be untrue. Verifiable names at the time of a contest are not harmful in that sense. It could be if an individual is rumored to be transitioning, but not for individuals who are clearly out.Nihlus20:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not assume that I am not aware of the issues they are facing. There is a difference between deadnaming someone while speaking of them in the present and mentioning their name at the time they participated in the show. Regardless, I'm not here to talk about these issues or for others to try to educate me on stuff I already know. Save it for the RfC.Nihlus20:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's really easy to assume that you are unaware of the isasues, when you are demonstrating that you are...unaware of the issues. Deadnaming isn't something that is okay in these cases and not in those cases, it's not okayever unless the specific trans person in question has said it is. 18:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added by24.138.76.242 (talk)
Innisfree987, no one has stated that we should use a single rule and only use that rule, so I will take that argument with a grain of salt. Additionally, flexible rules can easily exist and handle multiple situations that may come up. Nonetheless, at the end of the day I really don't care which consensus we come up with as long as we come up with one from a neutrally worded RfC. The one above was definitely not that. The first step would be seeing which transgender contestants there are and how their situations are similar and how they are different.Nihlus19:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must not understand what you mean bya revised RfC...that will apply to all articles under the Drag Race umbrella other thanthat we should use a single rule and only use that rule for Drag Race entries. But in any case, anyone is free to open an RfC. Just my two cents.Innisfree987 (talk)20:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I noticed someone changed all references to 'Tyra Sanchez' to 'James Ross formerly known as Tyra Sanchez' I assume in light of 2020 Ross announcing he is now longer doing drag. I've reverted these back due to from my understanding Tyra Sanchez would be the correct name as technically this is the queen who won, as opposd to Ross, even if now James Ross has retired the Tyra persona. Am I right in thinking this? ThanksHcvfd (talk)17:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing discussion regarding high, safe and low placements.
Due to recent comments, people have understandably made changes that don't represent what actually happened in terms of placements in the season. Although I would personally support the show disqualifying (or stripping of the title) Tyra Sanchez, I am not aware of any official comments or actions towards this decision. I am a fairly new editor to Wikipedia, and not a frequent one either, so I was curious as to what can be done to help prevent people's expression of their anger, no matter how valid, and make sure the current facts are displayed properly on this page rather than simply reverting changes that have increased recently.
