Jump to content

Talk:Dana Rivers

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


17 October 2022 Trial

[edit]

Links related to the 17 October 2022 jury trial in Alameda County, Califorinia.

Rorybowman (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshot

[edit]

Why is the Alameda County mugshot of Rivers in hospital gown not posted here? Is it a policy issue, or it simply that no one has bothered? Rorybowman (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Police "mugshot" of Dana Rivers by Alameda County Sheriff, California, 11 November 2016.

Rivers found guilty on all charges

[edit]

According to https://twitter.com/AirDhatu/status/1592673404200845312, the jury has found him guilty on all charges. 80.250.14.227 (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is not a reliable source. Wait for it to be covered in reliable sources. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Dansky reports on closing arguments and guilty verdicts

[edit]

Dansky writes:

I attended the closing arguments in the trial of Dana Rivers (a.k.a., David Warfield) on Monday, November 14. [...] The jury started deliberating on the morning of Tuesday November 15 and the verdict came down just before 4:00 p.m. that day - guilty on all counts: Murder in the first degree in the killings of Charlotte Reed, Patricia Wright, and Benny Wright and arson, with all special circumstances (particularly vulnerable victims, use of deadly weapons, etc.) being found to be true.

See https://karadansky.substack.com/p/closing-arguments-and-verdicts-in.

77.240.96.198 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style/ Gender Identity

[edit]

I'm making three edits to bring the article in line with MOS:GID. First, the pronouns should consistently be "she/her," even when talking pre-transition. There was a good faith edit to use gender neutral language, but that doesn't really apply here. WP:DEADNAME is pretty clear on this.

Second, her deadname should be removed, as "pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name." Again, WP:DEADNAME is very clear on this. The only argument for notoriety pre-transition is that she was a popular teacher that received a grant and was on a school board. The oldest article about her is from 1999, after she changed her name.

Third, the clause in the intro, "a male identifying as a woman" should be removed. It's completely unnecessary.

One more edit I think should be done is remove the unnecessary sentence about penile inversion surgery and breast augmentation. That's more tabloid content than encyclopedia.. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to decide if something is "tabloid" content, is if it's from a tabloid. This wasn't, it was from ABC News. The source seems to be fairly respectful to the subject, and gotten much of its details from the Rivers and her surgeon. We're not talking about a tabloid leaking private details of somebody's life they got from a paid informant. The surgery is probably one of the most significant details of her personal life, which she's chosen to share publicly. Take a look at Lance Armstrong, where there is a great deal of detail of the medical treatment, including mention of removing testicals. So, even encyclopedias can use words like "penile", "breast", and "testical" without being a tabloid. --Rob (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I think that ABC story is somewhat dated, but the fact it was an interview on national TV in 2006 is important. I think adding this context in the article would make it fit in better. Though I'm still not sure it needs to be there at all. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth are we catering to the preferences of a mass murderer!? If anything, the fact that being called "David Warfield" or "he" causes psychological distress to David Warfield is all the more reason to call him "David Warfield" as often as possible, not because David Warfield is trans, but because he is a mass-murdering scumbag who deserves to suffer immensely for his horrific crimes. That's not transphobic, any more than taking an opportunity to kick a cis male murderer in the testicles would be misandrist -- using a vulnerability to hurt someone who deserves to be hurt for an unrelated reason is not the same thing as hurting someone with that vulnerability because you hate everyone with that vulnerability.

If David Warfield the mass murderer was cisgender and was, for whatever reason, deeply upset by people calling him "David," rather than "Dave" (or vice versa), I would similarly urge that he be called "David" as often as possible (or "Dave," in the reverse case). In that scenario, for anyone to edit Wikipedia pages to remove all references to the name the murderer hates would rightly be viewed as bizarre. Why should a mass murderer who hates the name they were born with receive special consideration if the reason for that hatred is gender dysphoria? Why should a mass murderer receive any consideration whatsoever?148.61.38.120 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

birthdate is not sourced

[edit]

We need a reliable source for the birthdate. It's not in any source cited yet. Generally, an birthdate (especially an exact one) is considered private unless/until a reliable source publishes. So, something like a court database wouldn't qualify. I'm also perplexed why an editor who wants to keep a birth name private (which I agree with, since it's non-notable, not essential) but wishes to expose an exact birthdate, which is even less notable. What possible purpose is there in showing a person's *exact* birthdate? Wikipedia has millions of notable people who aren't famous. We shouldn't be publishing exact birthdates on every non-famous person, just because some random website happens to mention it. Lots of personal details can be found combing through court records. It's not our job to do this, or to repeat what some random site has done. Rather, we should just be following what reliable sources have done. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources. Unfortunately, what's likely to happen, is somebody keeps re-adding it to Wikipedia, which other sources will repeat, and it will eventually be fully public, and we'll and up citing that. --Rob (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! I corrected a couple dates in the article, and no birthdate just seemed like an oversight at the time. I missed the prior edit war. In hindsight, of course you need a good reason to include a birthday. I'd hate to contribute that circular citation problem, too. It's agGood reminder to slow down, and I obviously need to study WP:BLP more. Thanks. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does Dana's description line need an update?

[edit]

Is it still accurate to refer to Dana as a "transgender activist" in her description line? It seems to me that for the past few years, she is most known as being a murderer, not an activist. I do not want to make any changes without requesting feedback, but this seems a bit misleading to me as a description.

I realize that I am new to editing Wikipedia, so if policy is that people should be referred to as what they first made the news for vs. what they've made the news for in more recent years, I am eager to learn more! Codexica (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

River was previously notable as an activist, and is now notable as a murderer. What are other precedents, such as OJ Simpson? Perhaps there is guidance there. Rorybowman (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She's not notable as a murderer. The murders have received barely any press in comparison to the massive national attention of her case with the school board and releated activism. What coverage there has been of the murder mainly exists because of her prior notability as an transgender activist. Sadly, the murder of three people in California isn't an unusual event, and would never warrant an article. So, while relevant to include in the article, including lead, if we have to pick a single item for the description line, it has to be "transgender activist". --Rob (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree with Rob here; weight in Wikipedia articles is based on reporting in reliable sources, not editor interpretation. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reddux is NOT a trustworthy source

[edit]

I highly recommend to remove Reddux as a source. It is a fake news website, that is at least pretty inaccurate and leaves out important information on purpose. It writes highly misleading articles, in the least.


~~~ 77.20.46.10 (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Yeah, that website is terrible. It's especially not needed as a citation for the verdict, when the LA times citation is in the very next sentence. I removed it. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Mass murderer" and status as activist

[edit]

The addition of "mass murderer" to the article and the change from "transgender advocate" to "transgender rights activist" was a politically motivated edit by an account named "Actually, TWAM".

Moreover, it does not seem accurate to describe her as still being an activist, as she is not, to our knowledge, currently involved in any form of activism. To state that she "is an American transgender activist" implies she is actively involved in activism, which has not been the case for years. - Lekale35 (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging others involved in this dispute: @Codexica, Rorybowman, and Thivierr:. (Additional context at User talk:GorillaWarfare#Dana Rivers edit). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's clearly notable *only* as an activist. Do a Google News search on her, and you get multiple headlines like "Transgender activist and former teacher found guilty of triple murder".[1]. Being a trans activist is what she is known for. The murders would barely be mentioned locally, if not for her prior notability. Also, I don't think referring to her as an "activist" implies she's doing new activism today, just as calling her a "murderer" doesn't mean she's continuing to commit murder. --Rob (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. I prefer the term "advocate" as simpler than "rights activist," both stylistically and because Rivers is not particularly active just now, but don't think it matters a great deal. Certainly Rivers' conviction is more recently notable than the earlier lawsuit, but both seem worth keeping. Rorybowman (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Honestly, I think "activist" and "advocate" are basically synonyms in this instance, so I'm fine with wherever consensus lands. I do think that we need to keep the murder mention in the lede; while the original edit may have been from a biased account, it is true and noteworthy, and it's why she was back in the news. Codexica (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would there be any question of keeping the word, murderer, or murderer in the lead? MickTravisBickle (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Dansky as a source

[edit]

I'm curious other's opinions, on using Kara Dansky as a source, re Camp Trans. Previously, I didn't use her, as the info was posted on her personal blog, which doesn't count as a reliable source. Does the fact she wrote in an a book make her a valid source now. I'm not too worried about it, since Rivers' mere attendance at Camp Trans isn't contentious. But I think some statemetns by Dansky (see https://www.karadansky.com/state-v-dana-rivers-updates ) do go into contentious territory, and probably would need better sourcing than the blog or the book, if used to state facts regarding a living person. --Rob (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a better question to ask at WP:RSN, but for now I'm somewhat minded to say that no, it's not a reliable source. I think her pretty strong anti-trans bias (see her activities with WoLF), coupled with the book's publisher being both new (founded 2019) and known for its strong conservative bias [2], would make this book unreliable for any sort of factual content about a trans person, let alone a controversial one like Rivers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTRS: Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. I don't think Dansky's bias is a COI, but we can bring this to RSN if you want to dispute that. RAN1 (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why a court notes blog would make the book unreliable. RAN1 (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rivers' attendance at Camp Trans isn't contentious, but I don't think Dansky should be used as a source for that information, as (1) she has very lopsided reporting on matters surrounding Rivers, who is a controversial figure, and (2) the original Camp Trans website reporting is certainly more reliable than Dansky on the matter of "did Rivers attend Camp Trans."
The people that published the Camp Trans release would have actually seen Rivers there. Meanwhile, how does Dansky know that she went, 20 years later? If Dansky cited where she got the information from, then that should be used instead.
For now, I think it's self evident that the Camp Trans release (https://web.archive.org/web/20040604185617/http://www.camptrans.com/press/postct00.html) is the most reliable source. Although Camp Trans itself may be controversial, its reporting on "was this specific person there" shouldn't be. And clearly, people care if she was there or not, so it's worth putting in the article with the original source. 207.180.140.42 (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are self-published, we can't use it as a source for other parties. RAN1 (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is appearing in media now, no? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm opposed to mentioning Camp Trans. This is an entirely non-notable protest that nobody cares about *except* for the those that beleive there's a connection to the murders as suggested loosely here. Such connection was just a theory, without any confirmation, and no reliable sources say it's been established. Such a connection would require very good sourcing, that's not present. Without a connection, Camp Tans is to trivial to mention. --Rob (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Best as I can tell, Camp Trans has little to nothing to do with the murders, which happened over a year after MWMF ended. On the other hand, Camp Trans is notable enough for its own article, and the timing context is there. This isn't gossip, and Rivers's activism is the reason this article exists. RAN1 (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No activism in the activism section

[edit]

As the "activism" section is DR talking about her own case to the press, it is not a distinct subject from the section above. The sections should be combined and the activism heading removed unless there is something else to say. Compare Lynn Conway, who has a record of activism on behalf of transgender people other than herself. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Rivers transferred to Central California Women's Facility on June 16, 2023

[edit]

. 71.211.240.101 (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov 71.211.240.101 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

[edit]

Why does the Lede list her activism first and that she is a murderer second, when her murderer status is more noteworthy? Also why does the section "related articles" include "people who have been killed for being transgender" which does not apply, and not "transgendered people who have committed murder", which does apply. Dana Rivers is not the victim here; the people she murdered are the victims.72.181.112.54 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She was known to the press as an activist before she murdered people, so that is how the press reported on her. The school district that fired her is not justified in having done so because she committed murder 17 years later. Her web site documents instances where she spoke at public activism events and at least one of those can be independently confirmed ([3] at 4:19). Her involvement in Camp Trans is confirmed in a press release from the 2000 camp when she was one of eight evicted from the festival. I do not see a "related articles" section, nor do I see that there has ever been one, nor the link that you refer to. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "related articles" section is only visible on the mobile version: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Rivers, and does currently include "people who have been killed for being transgender," at least for me. I am not sure whether this section is manually created or algorithmically-generated, although I strongly suspect that it's the latter. (In which case the most likely explanation for its presence is simply that this article contains repeated occurrences of the two words "murder" and "transgender.") In either case, the outcome is objectionable.
If the section is manually created, it needs to be modified. If it's algorithmic, then it ought to be scrapped (entirely, not just on this page), since having a misleadingly-labeled, algorithmically-generated "Here's some random other stuff on our site that the article you just chose to view suggests you might want to impulse click!" section at the bottom of every mobile page seems like a pretty clear Dark Pattern to me. (If whoever is in charge of such decisions is not willing to scrap it, then the algorithm should at least be tweaked to make this sort of outcome less likely. But scrapping it would be better.) 148.61.38.120 (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we allowed to mention Camp Trans activism in Activism section?

[edit]

Seems like it is a big part of her story from media coverage. I was going to add the below:

She was also an activist at Camp Trans, an annual protest outside the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival against the rule that only biological females could attend that women's music festival.[4][5][6] Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this was discussed briefly back in April, and a rough consensus was reached to not mention Rivers' connection with Camp Trans. The reliable sourcing that's available doesn't associate a link between Rivers and the protest, and the unreliable sources that attempt to make a link seem to do so to try and disparage the protest. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we have Toronto Sun, NY Post, Daily Fail (i didnt cite the Fail myself) and AfterEllen all reporting she was a Camp Trans activist. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of those, the Toronto Sun, is somewhat reliable but not for biographies of living people. Both the NY Post and Daily Mail generally unreliable, with the Mail being deprecated. And AfterEllen's reliability is suspect when reporting on trans related topics due to their heavy bias. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are bad sources. Read the headline: "Trans activist on trial in slaying of lesbian couple, son over festival snub". That's a bold claim in the headline, yet in the body, it says "Neither cops nor prosecutors confirmed that the festival snub was the motive.". Other reporting of the murders, either didn't mention Camp Trans, or said that wasn't where they met, or they met through some other means. So, some early speculation of a horrific crime (which always has wild guesses about motive) turned into a headline asserting it as fact. Now, I acknowledge Bhdshoes2,'s suggested text isn't repeating the unfounded claim. But, It's reliant on a source that's clearly reckless and sensational in their reporting. --Rob (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AfterEllen source is just as bad. It states plainly that Rivers' activities at Camp Trans were not raised at the trial, and then despite this tries to establish a connection between the protest and the killings. If the Toronto Sun piece was reckless and sensational, I'd go so far to say that the AfterEllen piece is trying to invent a connection that wasn't relevant. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, four professional media outlets are a lot of sources! And tabloid media are pretty much the only media that cover true crime... Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ps: Also, if 4 professional media outlets aren't reliable, what about this column she herself apparently published on Lesbian Nation on her work at Camp Trans? It is true that the "gender critical movement" is harping on Camp Trans, but this seems like a well-settled element of her activism.
Link: Dana Rivers, "Room for All Kinds of Womyn." (Origially published at http://www.lesbianation.com August 2000) http://web.archive.org/web/20030831032319/http://danarivers.net/roomforwomyn.html Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When reliable sources write about Rivers, they generally don't mention her activities at Camp Trans. Without reliable sources making the link, including content on this would be to give undue weight to something that seems to be a minor aspect of River's broader life story. If we look at what reliable sources say on Rivers (Washington Post, LA Times, Advocate), while they do mention Rivers' activism none of them seem to mention either Camp Trans or Mitchfest in connection to it.
The only sources that seem to be trying to draw any sort of attention to Rivers connection with Camp Trans or Mitchfest seem to be those unreliable and heavily biased sources we've already discussed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the sources on the Rivers-as-Camp-Trans-alum are The New York Post (huge paper), the Daily Mail [which I will give you is very transphobic but still not known for factual inaccuracies], The Toronto Sun, and Rivers' own self-written August 2020 publication on Camp Trans in Lesbian Nation.
Hard to imagine a fact about the life story of any other individual being memory-holed like this after being published in 3 world famous papers and confirmed by the subject themselves in a publication, particularly where there is already a section on the very individual's "activism." Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All content on Wikipedia must be cited to a reliable source. The New York Post is considered a generally unreliable source per WP:NYPOST, due to a lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. The Daily Mail is considered a deprecated source per WP:DAILYMAIL, because it has a reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication. The Toronto Sun is considered unreliable for any BLP reporting per a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard.
A self-published article on LesbiaNation cannot count towards assessing weight. Even if that site was a reliable source, which is doubtful as looking at an archive of LesbiaNation as the site is no longer accessible, it appears not to meet our criteria for a reliable source, as it seemed to consist primarily of purchase articles provided by a third party ecommerce platform that is also now defunct.
None of these sources can be used for what you wish to use them for. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if those 3 published sources plus Dana's own published writings on Camp Trans plus the old Camp Trans press release aren't strong enough, how about these additional four, all of which recently publish the fact of her protest efforts at MichFest:
Feminist Current)), Spiked (magazine), Evie Magazine, the Del Norte Triplicate and Reduxx.
There is a section heading here called "Activism," right? Surely 9 separate publications on her MichFest activism carry some collective evidence of this as a report-worthy fact? I agree that you can pick apart each source as agenda-driven or terfy opinion or problematic, but that doesn't mean her push at MichFest isn't notable and note-worthy, right? Nine publications in -- mainly --actual known periodicals of this fact have to mean something collectively, right? Camp Trans is an esoteric topic and I would not expect the Nyt or WaPo to report on it. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also I see you are the same user who deleted references to Rivers from the pages Camp Trans and MichFest themselves. If you add AfterEllen to the above, that is like nearly 10 periodicals reporting the fact of her involvement. If any other notorious or notable human was reported to have protested at Camp Trans, like Brad Pitt or Cher or Ted Bundy or Jimmy Carter or Cardi B, whoever, and there were literally 10 or so professional publications reporting that fact, surely it would appear on the Camp Trans and MichFest pages. Why does Rivers get special treatment? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
who consensus? This really is the most problematic censorship. I watched a homemade documentary filmed at Transfest. Dana is speaking of the wonderful camp and the solidarity yet somehow that's not here. I'm a dyke in my 60's my 42yr partner has passed. Now I can't find others like I used to at festivals or bars. Apps for women only can't "discriminate" so they are full of men. Why is it that anyone thinks lying to ourselves and about ourselves is healthy? I understand the fantasy. It would be much easier if I was a guy I always thought. I am so grateful I did not take any testosterone. I am thankful that I am not dealing with all of the horrible side affects I never knew existed. Finding facts like what happens to a woman who takes testosterone should be easy but it is so so so difficult. Not being "negative" actually means not learning from papers that have not been published because nobody wants the fallout. This is disgraceful we should be ashamed of ourselves. This isn't being nice or polite it is lying to each other and ourselves. Perhaps Dana would not have so much anger. Who knows? What info that appears on the subject gets removed quickly. Gay men and women who find their way back are censored. Disgusted at censorship (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No-one here is getting special treatment. Per policy, unreliable sources do not count when determining weight. It doesn't matter if you have 1, 10, or 100 unreliable sources that assert something, if they're unreliable they do not count. As for the four extra publications that you've named but not linked, it's a little difficult to assess their reliability without having links to the articles in question, as reliable sources can often publish opinion articles that look like factual reporting, however of those three only Del Norte Triplicate seems to be reliable, though it has a very small distribution size. Could you link to the specific Del Norte article please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m new to Wikipedia, so I apologize if I don’t sign right. Why are BBC , Times London and CNN considered reliable sources when Dana Rivers is not even mentioned in ANYWHERE on those respective website and search engines at all? It seems that perhaps there might be a necessity for a separate page about the news coverage around Rivers? Perhaps a page for trial and media coverage separate from the main article? Honestly it’s very unique that a crime of this nature with a public transgender figure murdering Black people would not be included on major websites, which leads to the probability though not guarantee of some kind of censorship. I mean I’m a bit flummoxed, because I’m not even seeing her and the murders mentioned on The Guardian. There is clearly some thing going on. I think concerns about the omission of Camp Trans-which is documented by trans people themselves-are in good faith here. 2601:204:EF80:A110:1063:E5DD:AE01:54A (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dana_Rivers&oldid=1246759604"