Jump to content

Talk:Christine Jorgensen/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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

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 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? --Ornilnas (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

We refer to Jorgensen as "she" because she did; that's WP policy. Her personal history and her reasons for changing her name and having surgery are fairly typical of transgender 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. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
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 do this easily. At least I was confused the first time I read the introduction. So I think it should be spelled out/explained.--Ornilnas (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Correct pronouns

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 pronoun should be one given at birth.

Please read Wikipedia:Gender identity. Georgia guy (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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 until operation then female after. My vote is for the 3rd way however I will respect what the majority say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.240.51 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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, 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. Georgia guy (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the first user and not Georgia Guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.13.163 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Some registered user please watch this discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.8.153 (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

So now God assigns an English pronoun to each of us at birth? If this is to be Wikipedia 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 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". -- Jibal (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia 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". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Christine Jorgensen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Mysticism and white fandom

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

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

Furthermore, the fact that she is the subject of a scholarly work actually and objectively warrants attention, whatever the opinion being expressed it. Ktf87 (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

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 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. Ktf87 (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. Our purpose is to summarize the scholarly consensus about her. Furthermore, you're adding material that literally argues that we should be talking about other people instead, which is pretty much the opposite of being information about her. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Dead naming and Manual of Style

Wikipedia 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. Cactusframe (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is quite clear on the matter, here's the start of the relevant section under Identity:

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 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:983:58DF:1:75FA:FF24:6307:FDE3 (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

That section is talking about the person's gender, 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. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
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 preferred name and pronouns. 2001:983:58DF:1:19C4:FE06:8CF3:E232 (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
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 whether or not 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, this woman 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 given it's on the cover of her autobiography. 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. (Bones Jones (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
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'.
By deadnaming one denies her her identity, which is an act of violence (regardless of what your manuals may or may not state). 2001:983:58DF:1:19C4:FE06:8CF3:E232
As for the movie, IMDB deadnaming her is not a good excuse for Wikipedia to do the same. 2001:983:58DF:1:19C4:FE06:8CF3:E232 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
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", p. 4). "Deadnaming" is a modern concept and applying it to someone who clearly didn't care is historical revisionism.
You should note it says "give precedence," not "give exclusivity." Bones Jones (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
That use of either 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 not 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 report 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 name belongs in the article, as a point of information. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
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.2001:983:58DF:1:19C4:FE06:8CF3:E232 (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
So say you, but MOS:GENDER disagrees. Bones Jones (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The above-quoted MOS guideline is directly under the heading "Gender identity". The fact that it's specifically about gender is unmistakable.
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 female. 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 one place. In the same place in the article where we state that John Wayne was given the name "Marion Robert Morrison" at birth, where we state that Elton John was originally known to friends and family as "Reginald Kenneth Dwight", and where we explain that Jackie Kennedy Onassis 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 "violent". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
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 it in boldface in the first sentence of the article.
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 be.
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 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. 2001:983:58DF:1:98B0:91A1:730F:C488 (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Her birth name is relevant in part because she made it relevant, 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 just "Christine" as a fait accompli 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, Wikipedia does not have the godlike authority to declare a name an "error" and expunge it from the historical record. That may be your point of view, but it is not the only one, and Wikipedia's NPOV 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 actual 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.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
You're saying 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. 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?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see what point you're trying to make. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
You're saying ..this article isn't just for you. 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.) Georgia guy (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I understood the meaning of your words; I still don't see the point you're trying to imply with them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia's NPOV policy, but it applies to when there are 2 points of view, each of which is equally valid, not when one is educated and the other is ignorant. Georgia guy (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you; now I understand that you mistook my point. I wasn't talking about NPOV; I was arguing about serving the reader: not just those for whom it's obvious that a trans woman was probably named and raised as if she was male, but also those who need those facts spelled out. Applying the censorship that User:2001 demands would cause the article to fail the latter. Suppressing or obscuring information is counter-productive. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
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 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 not just two points of view here, and there very rarely are. Bones Jones (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
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 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 vastly 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. Bones Jones (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
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 story. And "protecting" a dead person from the imagined "violence" of their birth name being stated, is metaphysical hooey. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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 clear.Ornilnas (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

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. Grassynoel (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s in the early life section, the only place it needs to be. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Removed it to comply with the current Wikipedia policy MOS:DEADNAME which is clear deadnames do not belong anywhere in the article when the subject was never notable while using that name. Rab V (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
So Wikipedia's gone Full Orwell now? And deleting historical information to protect the "privacy" of the dead? A sad day for Facts. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain extending privacy guidelines that already existed to include trans people is not a 1984 scenario. Rab V (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I have no doubt that you believe it's goodthink. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Instead of personal attacks, let's use this talk page in more productive ways. Rab V (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.94.127 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
It's a guideline (MOS:DEADNAME) in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. It represents the consensus of many editors after much discussion. That is the reason to suppress her deadname here. There will always be editors who disagree with that consensus for any number of reasons, and that's fine, but until and unless you get consensus at WT:MOSBIO to change the guideline, her deadname will not be included in the article. Srey Srostalk 23:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, MOS:DEADNAME is about using the birth names of living 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 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 old 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.), unless they prefer their former name be used for past events" 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. Bones Jones (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
There was recently an RfC about this very issue. 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. Loki (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
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 an exception to WP:NOTCENSORED under BLP privacy policies." 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 having a deadname, just an old name, and used that name to describe her life pre-transition.
As noted, the issue here is you're imagining that Christine ever stopped 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 Steve." Both names are notable in that scenario. Bones Jones (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia does not mean that this article can be changed based on that understanding. You need to take this up directly at the 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. Mathglot (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure who you're replying to there. Bones Jones (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Also: regardless of whether you think we know what DEADNAME says, this is edit-warring. You can't just ignore the talk page and revert to your preferred version. Loki (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
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:
  • Why a policy related to BLP issues applies to someone who is dead;
  • 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;
  • Why you believe a name she famously said she previously had is not notable, and/or;
  • What the hell right you think you have to delete how a trans woman self-identified.
or it doesn't matter how many of you there are, you're all violating policy. Bones Jones (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
LokiTheLiar, 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 User:Gleeanon409 pointed out above, the body of the article already contained it and it isn't necessary in the lead.
Rab V, I agree with your revert at the article while talk is ongoing, however not with your interpretation of DEADNAME above. 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:
  • she is deceased
  • your revert 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
  • 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.
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 lead.)
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 normal article policy and guidelines of what is relevant, WP:DUE, 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.
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 (WACs or WAVES—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.
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 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography 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, Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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 adding the name adds much to the article, is contentious and is part of a biased way to talk about trans people. Rab V (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what policy is. She is 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 begins "If a living transgender or non-binary person..." and you can't just edit that part out and act like only the rest of the sentence exists. Bones Jones (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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 case by case basis by editors. In this case, I don't think the name should be included. Rab V (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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 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, only apply to living individuals and are completely irrelevant in this case. And as I have said, even if we act as if MOS:DEADNAME applies in this instance, you are still violating the section "unless they prefer their former name be used for past events," which is what Christine did in her autobiography, where she described herself in the past as a boy and by her birthname. Bones Jones (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Rab V: Above, you said that

DEADNAME applies beyond the lead FYI, it says...

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:

If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.(bold emphasis added)

Jorgensen is dead; there is no question whatever that the section you quoted from DEADNAME does not apply to this article.
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 policy- compliant. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Mathglot, 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.)
Local consensus here for a while has been "no we shouldn't". 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. (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.
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 Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information and because dead people still have some interest in keeping their private information private: weaker interest than living people, of course, but still some.
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 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. Loki (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't matter. A policy that says over and over that it only applies to living 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 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 after 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, 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.
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 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.
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 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. Bones Jones (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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 WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO) where one actually can unilaterally remove a violation of the policy against consensus are stated very explicitly on WP:3RRNO. Otherwise there would basically be no such thing as edit-warring, because almost all content disputes on Wikipedia have some policy backing for both sides.
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 [of a newspaper]", but only ever puts "George" into direct quotes except for when 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, 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 mistakes?
Third, here's a direct quote from the RfC: 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. Until this has been done, the default is that the situation needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. 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. (Emphasis mine.)
And finally, you're quite right that MOS:DEADNAME 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 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. Loki (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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 often, in life, called by the hyphenated title "George-Christine"). You cannot decide by consensus that an entire policy 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 heads.
Specifically, if you read it properly, "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" 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 never notable under her birth name.
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 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 not normal 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 autobiography where some did 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.
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 entirely at odds with the modern trans narrative, but it is how such things were framed at the time.
She clearly 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 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).
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. 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 "unless they prefer their former name be used for past events" section becomes relevant. She did, in fact, use her birthname to describe herself in the past. Bones Jones (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@LokiTheLiar: You said you won't self-revert for "basically the reason Rab V outlines", then you've got no argument, because Rab V's claim above is not based on any policy or guideline, as I already showed. 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. Mathglot (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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 reasons we've stated in detail above. (Maybe if several People I respect on transgender issues ... are going all sideways on this you should reconsider if it's not you that's sideways.)
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 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. Wikipedia is still not an indiscriminate collection of information and this is one of the reasons behind MOS:DEADNAME. It's not just a BLP policy, it's a WP:NOTABILITY policy as well.
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 Citizen Kane, 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 tons of alternate language titles. 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 Grave of the Fireflies where it was originally released in another language, where we include only the original title (i.e. the title it was notable under). Loki (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, the RfC's conclusion was to make no change 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 protected (there is a distinct difference between someone choosing to reveal information themselves 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 it as a "deadname" in the modern sense, which one does not circulate.
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 Citizen Kane are not excluded because they are private, 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 does have multiple titles that differ drastically, they are generally identified in the lede (eg Mad Max 2's US title The Road Warrior). Even your own mention of the two titles of Grave of the Fireflies defeats your point, since the Japanese title is there because English RS use both titles to refer to it. Guess how that applies here? Bones Jones (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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. 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. Rab V (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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, after 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. Bones Jones (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexualities

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cccc2026 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by LivMourning (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 22 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabriellacarriere (article contribs). Peer reviewers: James Goodyear.

— Assignment last updated by James Goodyear (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

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.

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

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

More broadly, consider rereading for grammatical and structural errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Goodyear (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The History of Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hails.ak (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Snchristensen (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Parents birth country

The article said her parents were Dutch from their Netherlands. It’s a very common misconception that they are the same country. Whilst, the BBC article cited by the writer says they were Danish. Given her surname and the BBC saying she disguised it as a trip to visit family I believe she was Danish American. 2600:4040:AB3B:E000:2DBE:555F:AD71:875E (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

She was Danish and she made this quite clear in her published diary in 1070. Spenser - The Unknown (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

Delete or add source for "She also wrote a Scandinavian cookbook." and move it to the section "Books." Starling1469 (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There was no source to begin with for it, I just removed She also wrote a Scandinavian cookbook, I don't see how it was that relevant to begin with. Seawolf35 T--C 23:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christine_Jorgensen/Archive_2&oldid=1258968478"