283
edits
Tag: 2017 source edit |
(→Bump) |
||
(23 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 312: | Line 312: | ||
: @Najawin But there is no standardised current practice. Every page which has a trans person with a deadname is structured completely differently around the deadname. Although admittedly none of these pages completely omit the deadname, there is still no unified current practice, hence it is not against [[T:BOUND]], is it? {{User:Aquanafrahudy/Signature}} 20:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC) | : @Najawin But there is no standardised current practice. Every page which has a trans person with a deadname is structured completely differently around the deadname. Although admittedly none of these pages completely omit the deadname, there is still no unified current practice, hence it is not against [[T:BOUND]], is it? {{User:Aquanafrahudy/Signature}} 20:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC) | ||
::But I didn't suggest that we would be bound by current policy to place the deadname in any particular part of the page. Just that there's no precedent for removing it. So, for instance, when Epsilon removed it from the lede, that was wholly proper. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
I've been uninvolved in this discussion so far, but would like to weigh in with some thoughts: | |||
* The thing about <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:hidden_text|hidden_text]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> is that what putting a honking big box over it is gonna achieve is just to draw more attention to it. If the goal is to be considerate of trans readers' feelings, this instead makes it a nice little juicy secret somebody could unlock, as a little treat. Do not do this. | |||
* At a few points upthread this discussion devolves into the sentiment that the collection of facts from the DWU is more important than how anyone feels about them to such a point that somebody literally said "facts don't care about feelings," a phrase impossible to separate from American far-right talk show hosts and the violent internet trolls who repeat their ideas and catchphrases. Facts may not care, but we are not facts, and we can care about both. I want to assume in good faith that it was said by a non-native speaker out of passion for this project and not intended to echo far-right sentiments, but personally, I found that much harder to read and swallow than the inclusion in <nowiki>[[</nowiki>[[Rose Noble]]<nowiki>]]</nowiki> of her deadname, and if somebody had talked like that somewhere I was an admin or moderator, I, well. I'm not, here, so I shouldn't say. But I wouldn't have been as polite about it as I am here. Which brings us to the issue at hand. | |||
* I say this as a non-binary person with a relationship to the name I was given at birth not unlike Rose's: She's fictional, and her deadname is a fact about her that's worth including. Her relationship to it, the way it's used against her by those boys, the name's etymology, all of it tells us things about both her character and the narrative around her that would be incomplete without acknowledging, regardless of the pain both real and fictional it reflects, the name she was given by Donna and Shaun at birth. Simply mentioning it the way the article does now -- once, in the bio section, maybe in a behind the scenes section, but ''not'' in the infobox or header -- accurately reflects its status as a fact about her history that she has now left behind, not unlike a shitty first job or the dodgy blue you dyed your hair when you were twelve. | |||
* This wiki has over the past few years gotten massively better at caring about people's feelings. Loads of facts about fictional characters' histories might be upsetting to read because they remind the reader of their own trauma, but you can't just edit out every violent assault, every loss of a parent, every broken limb, every imprisonment, every abusive relationship. These are unfortunate, unpleasant truths about life that are reflected in fiction, and it's not unreasonable at all to reflect them here when covering that fiction. Let's not overshoot. | |||
--[[User:AeD|Alex Daily]] ([[User_talk:AeD|talk]]) 13:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
The name's been removed now, but not the hidden message saying not to. What's happening here? Is my suggestion being taken on board, is the message being kept an oversight? [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
:It was just random vandalism nobody caught. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
This would honestly be one instance where a content warning tag could easily be applied without ambiguity. Accounts of transphobic behaviour is absolutely the sort of thing it would cover. [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
: I just wanted to add my thoughts to this discussion. While the name must be included on the page, it must also be included with care. I agree that hidden text only draws further attention to it. In my mind, the best thing to do in this instance is to include the name once, unemboldened in the biography section. The harder subject is Cassandra O'Brien, who has multiple deadnames in her biography. I would suggest that these are removed from the infobox asap, and each mentioned in the biography only once. [[User:66 Seconds|66 Seconds]] [[User talk:66 Seconds|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: Also agree that is necessary to include, but should be included sparingly. Though I have a question that's more about preparing for the future. So far all the examples we have are characters who have transitioned before their first or only appearances or characters who transition in their only story, at least as far as I am aware. But say in the future we have stories set before Rose transitioned or even a character with a number of appearances prior to transitioning and/or changing names. How would we cover those, particularly in regards to the use of their names in biography sections. If we're forming a policy about how to handle in-universe deadnames, then these scenarios, especially the latter one should be something we're prepared for in advance. [[User:Time God Eon|Time God Eon]] [[User talk:Time God Eon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 04:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::: I think that as long as the deadname is stated as a deadname and is only added where relevant, it should be included somewhere (though not the lead). The purpose of this wiki is to document the show, the deadname was part of that show. It was an important part of the episode, showing the sort of bullying trans people face. Trying to gloss over that bullying seems disrespectful to me. [[User:LauraBatham|LauraBatham]] [[User talk:LauraBatham|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 05:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::: In response to [[Time God Eon]] for a character that transitions later in the show, the main name of the character should be updated, and most instances of the name, the deadname would probably have to be included at least in the bio but I'm not sure about elsewhere. [[User:Hasrock36|Hasrock36]] [[User talk:Hasrock36|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 09:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::: A character who transitions later in-universe should be treated just like any real life person who transitions. Caitlyn Jenner won gold medals in decathlon events, Elliot Page was nominated for an Academy Award for his role in ''Juno'', etc. If, let's say, Rose Tyler started identifying as male? "Ross - or whoever - travelled with the Ninth and Tenth Doctor and later had a daughter with the Meta-Crisis Doctor". [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::Cool, I wasn't entirely sure how to handle that, but I knew we had to future proof the policy for that. [[User:Time God Eon|Time God Eon]] [[User talk:Time God Eon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
So, are we any closer to reaching a conclusion here? [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 09:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
: In all honesty... we don't always have to cover every single piece of information. Just because the Wiki has a "cover virtually all information" approach to handling ''Who'', doesn't mean we can't consider the impact of doing so; we used to have pages on slurs, as well a... detailed [[cleavage]] page, but after discussion we agreed that perhaps covering everything without any sort of consideration isn't a good thing. | |||
: Now, I am not saying we shouldn't cover Rose's deadname, but we can reduce its presence on many pages by just say "Rose was born under a deadname", "Rose was deadnamed", etc, instead of adding it to random pages such as [[Josie Wingate]]. | |||
: I have drafted a version of Rose Noble's page at [[User:Epsilon the Eternal/Rose Noble]], where you can see I have written "Rose was assigned male at birth and given a male name", then adding {{tlx|note}} to provide a brief bit of context, while linking to the behind the scenes section where the deadname is handled in a hopefully respectful way. | |||
: I am not sure if this standard could be consistently applied to other trans characters, as there may not be as much behind the scenes information available to provide insight and context, but I feel making the effort is better than just lumping the deadname on the page without any warning. | |||
: Speaking of, [[Cassandra O'Brien.Δ17]] is in dire need of better treatment, as her deadname is bolded in her lead, placed in the aliases section of her infobox, and place throughout her biography, all without any sort of content warning. We need some sort of progression on this thread, and fast. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 18:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: Cassandra's complicated. Her biography as given in that story includes several switches back and forth, and I'm not sure if she's intended to be "binary trans, who had to detrans several times" (which would indeed make it a deadname) or, in fact, genderfluid. Notably, on TV, she does say "when I was a little boy", not "when I was a little girl wrongly perceived as a boy"… [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 18:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::Epsilon, your proposal re:Rose doesn't work for a simple reason. BTS sections are OOU. By placing her deadname there we're simply not documenting the IU fact of it, we're documenting the BTS production details that led to the choice of it. It's a subtle distinction, but one that exists. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Bump == | |||
(Are non-mods allowed to make page breaks like this?) | |||
It's been over two months now, you guys. We should really maybe think about getting a final ruling. If the conversation is going to go on longer, I ''still'' say we should remove the deadname ''in the meantime'' if nothing else. [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
: I think we've had enough for a conclusion here, but I was sort of hoping [[User:SOTO]], resident trans admin, could field this one, and they've been very busy IRL. (For the curious: I do, as stated on my user page, use they/them pronouns interchangeably with he/him, but I'm really nowhere near trans "enough" to count as an involved party here, if only because I don't actually have a deadname myself.) Am happy to close it under advisement from trans friends and such if the community wills it, though. This ''has'' gone on too long. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 20:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Just bumping again now the fork has occurred to get an official ruling on this [[User:Hasrock36|Hasrock36]] [[User talk:Hasrock36|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 10:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: +1 on we need an official ruling. I didn't toss my two cents in during the bulk of the discussion as I was still largely a lurker, but since I've started engaging with editing a little more, I'd like to add my piece. Removal of the deadname in its entirety on moral grounds would almost certainly be a big NPOV violation. That said, that would still be the route I'd be most in favour of. Otherwise, documentation of the facts, couched in content warnings, BTS explanations, and {{tlx|hidden text}} would be my next preferred option. In a different, more perfect world, the article as it stands would be probably basically fine, but we live in a world filled with rampant, rising transphobia, a media machine fanning the flames, and governments actively legislating against trans people's existence. We should, as a community, actively stand against this in our policy and direction of coverage, in my opinion. We do, insofar as RW coverage is concerned ([[T:ACTOR]]); We should reflect that attitude across our whole coverage. - [[User:CodeAndGin|<span style="color:green" title="CodeAndGin">CodeAndGin</span>]] | [[User_talk:CodeAndGin|<span title="Talk to me">🗨</span>]] | 15:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I would also like to say that this I do think needs closing I have made my statements and I still stand by them I do think that this is very important and that Moral and Policy perspectives should both be taken into account whilst I lean slightly more towards the Moral points I still think policy a NPOV should be taken into consideration even if in the end they are disregarded--[[User:Anastasia Cousins|Anastasia Cousins]] [[User talk:Anastasia Cousins|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
edits